Republicans Set Aside Middle-Income Tax Cuts to Focus on Rich

[DeclinetoState]

Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aUuyWDCDyRIk)

By Ryan J. Donmoyer

May 8 (Bloomberg) -- Republican lawmakers, facing the prospect that their power to cut taxes may soon be curbed, plan to extend breaks that mostly benefit the wealthy and Wall Street at the expense of reductions for middle-income households.

Six months before elections that may return a Democratic majority in at least one house of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois are focusing on extending the 15 percent rate on investments and repealing the estate tax. They won't push extensions of lower rates for all taxpayers and expanded breaks for married couples and families with children, which expire after 2010.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Sounds like left-wing Big Lie Propaganda to me.

[Borgia]

Sounds like left-wing Big Lie Propaganda to me.

Your opinion devoid of any substance is noted. If it is a lie, why don't you try and refute it? Or can't you?

[dPrasse]

focusing on extending the 15 percent rate on investments and repealing the estate tax.

I support this ... makes great sense ... the Estate Tax has always been a double tax on families that worked hard and saved and built up equity ... it especially hits family farms , when most of them are asset rich and cash poor ...

They won't push extensions of lower rates for all taxpayers and expanded breaks for married couples and families with children, which expire after 2010.

If this is true and the author isn't only telling part of the story , seems to me the RINO Party is once again showing that they do not have the balls to lead and have already given up on the upcoming elections ...

but , it'll be hard for Dems to push to keep the tax cuts that they have been claiming is the ruin of the Nation ....

So , do the Dims admit that tax cuts are good and fight to keep the breaks or do they stay true to their rhetoric and support the Repub's in letting the tax breaks die ?

It sucks to be a Democrat ....

[Rhino]

Sounds like left-wing Big Lie Propaganda to me.Yep. Most of those taxes are paid by the middle class, but that's never stopped them from playing the 'rich card'.

[Borgia]

I support this ... makes great sense ... the Estate Tax has always been a double tax on families that worked hard and saved and built up equity ... it especially hits family farms , when most of them are asset rich and cash poor ...

What is it with you folks and this notion of double taxation? A lot os estates are comprised of investments like stocks, bonds and property that HAVE NOT had their appreciation taxed. So a lot of the inheiritance has not been taxed before. If the deceased had cashed in all those stocks and bonds they would have been taxed on the appreciation, why should the heirs get to avoid all of that?

Heck, I get taxed on my income and then I get taxed on things I buy. Do you now want to repeal the sales tax cause it is a form of double taxation? It is so easy to gab about repealing taxes but oh so hard to actually reduce spending. Lowering taxes is putting the cart before the horse. We have tried and it spending has gone up. Why not try reducing spending BEFORE you cut taxes?

Anyway, the estate tax is fine with me. The family farm must be pretty big to have any estate taxes on it. The current exemption is $2,000,000. Yep, no taxes paid on the first 2 million in inheiritance.

So, how many farms out there are in danger from the tax? Not many, it turns out less that 500 farms in 2004 were subject to the estate tax (excluding sideline hobby farms). Most of the beneficiaries of the estate tax repeal would be non-farmers and mostly rich folk. Nothing against rich folk but they should pay along with the rest of us.

[Rhino]

But they shouldn't pay more.

[Rhino]

And your definition of rich may well differ from others.

[Borgia]

But they shouldn't pay more.

Why not? With greater power comes greater responsibility.

My defn of rich is anyone earning over $200k per year is rich. Below that is middle class. How's that?

[Lazarus]

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois are focusing on extending the 15 percent rate on investments and repealing the estate tax. The two above-mentioned tax cuts precisely effect this very middle income family extensively... I have been waiting for them to repeal the estate tax ever since Bush took office and that is one area that has me frustrated with the REPUBLICANS...

The 15 percent rate on investments also effects anyone like me who is trying to improve their finacial status by investing their meager disposable income... Favorable treatment of capital gains is the motivation for people to invest, and investment dollars is what employs all of America... It is the base driving force of our economy...

[Rhino]

Why not? With greater power comes greater responsibility.I disagree, but we've covered that before.

My defn of rich is anyone earning over $200k per year is rich. Below that is middle class. How's that?So, if I manage to accumulate $2 million in my retirement accounts, I should not be subject to the estate tax? I make less than $200k per year. My point is, $2 million may sound rich superficially, but it's not when you spread it out over my expected retirement years. A lot of people are erroneously classified as rich when they are not.

Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate having untaxed assets. Those that have heretofore been untaxed should indeed be taxed, but not at exhorbitant rates, and not twice. And yes, some assets are indeed taxed twice.

This issue is also most often viewed in the context of individuals. That ignores the effects on the economy. Most assets subject to estate taxes are invested where they have a beneficial effect on the economy. Much like the capital gains tax, the benefits can offset the direct revenue loss impact.

[Rhino]

The 15 percent rate on investments also effects anyone like me who is trying to improve their finacial status by investing their meager disposable income... Favorable treatment of capital gains is the motivation for people to invest, and investment dollars is what employs all of America... It is the base driving force of our economy...:yeahthat:

[Borgia]

The two above-mentioned tax cuts precisely effect this very middle income family extensively... I have been waiting for them to repeal the estate tax ever since Bush took office and that is one area that has me frustrated with the REPUBLICANS...

You are middle class and expect to inheirit well over $2 million? Whoever your benefactors are, they aren't middle class.


The 15 percent rate on investments also effects anyone like me who is trying to improve their finacial status by investing their meager disposable income... Favorable treatment of capital gains is the motivation for people to invest, and investment dollars is what employs all of America... It is the base driving force of our economy...

Yet we have had capital gains taxes for years and it has not stopped you from investing. How else will you improve your finanacial status except by investing? I don't think a 15% tax on gains is exhorbitant, do you?

[Lazarus]

Why not? With greater power comes greater responsibility.

My defn of rich is anyone earning over $200k per year is rich. Below that is middle class. How's that?Your approach is unfair and unequal... It is prejudicial against those who have built greater wealth and it discourages any motivation to achieve excellence...

That is the same tired old class warfare propoganda that is the basis for Marxism and it has destroyed economic growth in every country in which it has been applied... It is targeted directly at the extinction of the millionaire simply based on the old sin we used to call envy...

Taxing the rich at a higher rate never improves the lot of the lower classes and only achieves destruction of the rich...

[Patriot Heart]

From a thread I posted last week.....
"Between 2002 and 2004, tax payments by those with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of more than $200,000 a year, which is roughly 3% of taxpayers, increased by 19.4% -- more than double the 9.3% increase for all other taxpayers.

Between 2001 and 2004 (the most recent data), the percentage of federal income taxes paid by those with $200,000 incomes and above has risen to 46.6% from 40.5%. In other words, out of every 100 Americans, the wealthiest three are now paying close to the same amount in taxes as the other 97 combined."
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/....html?id=14403 (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=14403)

[Borgia]

So, if I manage to accumulate $2 million in my retirement accounts, I should not be subject to the estate tax?

If you accumulate $2 million in your retirementment, congrats. That would supply you a 30 year income of $111k invested in safe choices (4%).

If you accumulate $2M and die, then your heirs would pay taxes on what they inheirit from you. Since you have a total of $2M, they PAY NOTHING in taxes since that is the amount that is not liable for estate tax.


I make less than $200k per year. My point is, $2 million may sound rich superficially, but it's not when you spread it out over my expected retirement years. A lot of people are erroneously classified as rich when they are not.

Like I calculated above, $2M will easily give you over $111k in income for 30 years. I did not classify you as rich since you did not make over $200k per year.


Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate having untaxed assets. Those that have heretofore been untaxed should indeed be taxed, but not at exhorbitant rates, and not twice. And yes, some assets are indeed taxed twice.

Some may be taxed twice. The stocsk and bonds that have appreciated in value have not been taxed before.


This issue is also most often viewed in the context of individuals. That ignores the effects on the economy. Most assets subject to estate taxes are invested where they have a beneficial effect on the economy. Much like the capital gains tax, the benefits can offset the direct revenue loss impact.

Whether the estate tax is there or not people will invest. Getting rid of estate taxes will only rob money out of Uncle Sam's pocket. Yeah, I know. that is fine with some but I think such thoughts betray a rather puerile thought process since no effort is made to reduce spending to counter hte reduction in income.

[Rhino]

You are middle class and expect to inheirit well over $2 million? Whoever your benefactors are, they aren't middle class.No, I expect to save that much (God willing), and I'm definitely middle class.

[Borgia]

Your approach is unfair and unequal... It is prejudicial against those who have built greater wealth and it discourages any motivation to achieve excellence...

And yet, somehow, everyone still strives toget rich...


Taxing the rich at a higher rate never improves the lot of the lower classes and only achieves destruction of the rich...

Hmm, we have had graduated rates for a heck of a long time and the lower class seems to have improved their lot. Further, wealthy people abound.

So you will have to excuse me if I think your rhetoric is belied by the preponderance of evidence in front of us.

[Borgia]

No, I expect to save that much (God willing), and I'm definitely middle class.

OK, and then you want to pass that $2M on to someone, correct? Be safe in the knowledge that they will pay NO tax on that inheiritance. Probably by the time you pass on the tax-free limit will be up around $3M.

So what is your beef with the estate tax as it relates to your situation?

[Borgia]

From a thread I posted last week.....

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/....html?id=14403 (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/....html?id=14403)

PH, the problem with your stats is they do not account for inflation. They do not account for more people earning over $200k. So if your group 3 years later has more people in it, why are you surprised that they pay more of the federal taxes than they did 3 years ago? That is a severe flaw in your source's reasoning.

[Wyatt_Junker]

It is so easy to gab about repealing taxes but oh so hard to actually reduce spending. Lowering taxes is putting the cart before the horse. We have tried and it spending has gone up. Why not try reducing spending BEFORE you cut taxes?


No. No. No. No.

You don't understand the way DC works. There is no willpower for good apart from tax cuts. You have to cut taxes FIRST in order TO FORCE a spending restraint, even if it means eating a deficit for a few years. Tax cuts themselves ARE congressional discipline. The politicians will never work from a position of responsibility. It must be forced upon them, even if the bond market tanks and even if the deficit balloons. The spending budget is always reared to some degree off of projected tax revenue.

[Lazarus]

The estate tax is evil in its principle... It taxes wealth not only twice but as many times as it is passed to each subsequent generation... It demonstrates a fundamental difference in Convervative and Liberal thought... It assumes that all wealth is ultimately the property of the state, not the individual, and the state has the right to a bite of it everytime it is transferred between private individuals...

[Borgia]

No. No. No. No.

You don't understand the way DC works. There is no willpower for good apart from tax cuts. You have to cut taxes FIRST in order TO FORCE a spending restraint, even if it means eating a deficit for a few years. Tax cuts themselves ARE congressional discipline. The politicians will never work from a position of responsibility. It must be forced upon them, even if the bond market tanks and even if the deficit balloons. The spending budget is always reared to some degree off of projected tax revenue.

Well, we watched Reagan cut taxes as per your theorem, and yet neither he nor Bush (HW) ever cut spending. So we have seen a 12 year experiment using YOUR system and it failed.

Might I acquaint you with the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin:


The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.


Perhaps it is time to try MY strategy of spending cuts FIRST and then tax cuts?

[Rhino]

If you accumulate $2M and die, then your heirs would pay taxes on what they inheirit from you. Since you have a total of $2M, they PAY NOTHING in taxes since that is the amount that is not liable for estate tax.Yes, it is. One of the largest percentages of estate taxes paid in 2004 (36.5%) was on estates of between 1 and 2 million. But that's not the point. You seem motivated by a 'stick it to the rich' mentality, and I'm far from rich. I plan to spend that money. But if I die, you are using the 'rich card' to advocate estate taxes for me, even though I'm not rich. As far as my heirs go, I have no intention of giving them a $2 million windfall. It would go into a trust for their own retirement, so they would not be rich either. My point is, the 'rich' argument for estate taxes doesn't work here, though you seem to think it does.

Some may be taxed twice. The stocsk and bonds that have appreciated in value have not been taxed before.So you think double taxation is fair. On that we disagree.

Whether the estate tax is there or not people will invest.Bullpuckey. History has proven that wrong. Asset movement and reinvestment rates have been repeatedly tied to taxation rates.

Getting rid of estate taxes will only rob money out of Uncle Sam's pocket. Yeah, I know. that is fine with some but I think such thoughts betray a rather puerile thought process since no effort is made to reduce spending to counter hte reduction in income.Don't need to. Just as with reducing the capital gains tax, the increase in investment indirectly generates revenues in excess of the loss seen directly from decreasing the tax itself. Frankly though, I wouldn't care much if that were not true. Saying the government needs money is never a justification for double taxation or taxation at a confiscatory level, unless you're in a communist country.

[Borgia]

The estate tax is evil in its principle... It taxes wealth not only twice but as many times as it is passed to each subsequent generation... It demonstrates a fundamental difference in Convervative and Liberal thought... It assumes that all wealth is ultimately the property of the state, not the individual, and the state has the right to a bite of it everytime it is transferred between private individuals...

Incorrect. A good portion of the inheirited wealth is due to the aprecaition fo investments (stocks, bonds etc) which HAS NEVER BEEN TAXED.

[Rhino]

Perhaps it is time to try MY strategy of spending cuts FIRST and then tax cuts?You won't find too many people here who disagree with that. The disagreement is where to make the cuts.

[Rhino]

Incorrect. A good portion of the inheirited wealth is due to the aprecaition fo investments (stocks, bonds etc) which HAS NEVER BEEN TAXED.And a good portion has been taxed before. I think that is what he's referring to.

[Borgia]

Yes, it is. One of the largest percentages of estate taxes paid in 2004 (36.5%) was on estates of between 1 and 2 million.

Ah, but the exemption has gone up since then. Here is the schedule:

<TABLE summary="Increased Estate Tax Applicable Exclusion Amounts" border=1><THEAD><TR><TH id=tbl790id0_0 scope=col colSpan=2>Applicable Exclusion Amounts</TH></TR><TR><TH id=tbl790id1_0 scope=col>Year</TH><TH id=tbl790id1_1 scope=col>Exclusion Amount




</TH></TR></THEAD><TBODY><TR><TD headers="tbl790id1_0 tbl790id0_0">2003</TD><TD headers="tbl790id1_1 tbl790id0_0">$1,000,000




</TD></TR><TR><TD headers="tbl790id1_0 tbl790id0_0">2004 and 2005</TD><TD headers="tbl790id1_1 tbl790id0_0">$1,500,000




</TD></TR><TR><TD headers="tbl790id1_0 tbl790id0_0">2006, 2007, and 2008</TD><TD headers="tbl790id1_1 tbl790id0_0">$2,000,000




</TD></TR><TR><TD headers="tbl790id1_0 tbl790id0_0">2009</TD><TD headers="tbl790id1_1 tbl790id0_0">$3,500,000




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=112782,00.html#estate_tax_rate_2006

But that's not the point. You seem motivated by a 'stick it to the rich' mentality, and I'm far from rich. I plan to spend that money. But if I die, you are using the 'rich card' to advocate estate taxes for me, even though I'm not rich. As far as my heirs go, I have no intention of giving them a $2 million windfall.

Consult the above chart taken directly from the IRS. Your $2M could be passed on tax-free.


Bullpuckey. History has proven that wrong. Asset movement and reinvestment rates have been repeatedly tied to taxation rates.
You know what I am going to ask, right? :) Cite?


Don't need to. Just as with reducing the capital gains tax, the increase in investment indirectly generates revenues in excess of the loss seen directly from decreasing the tax itself. Frankly though, I wouldn't care much if that were not true. Saying the government needs money is never a justification for double taxation or taxation at a confiscatory level, unless you're in a communist country.

Valiant words but two problems:

1. You have not shown that the loss of revenue would be offset.
2. How easy it is to say the govt does not need the money. Sorry, that is a cop-out unless you reduce spending.

[Lazarus]

Incorrect. A good portion of the inheirited wealth is due to the aprecaition fo investments (stocks, bonds etc) which HAS NEVER BEEN TAXED.One wonders why you think there is a fundamental moral right of the govenrmnet to tax all private property... You seem to invest the govenrment with divine rights as if they are some kind of living entity that exists somewhere between God in heaven and mortal men on earth...

Or maybe Im giving you more credit than I should... Maybe to you the government IS God in heaven...

[Borgia]

Yes, it is. One of the largest percentages of estate taxes paid in 2004 (36.5%) was on estates of between 1 and 2 million.

So a lot of estates in this range were subject to the estate tax. All right. But what effective percentage did they pay? My guess is they paid a very low percentage to taxes for their estate. considering at least half the inheiritance had a tax rate of 0%.

[Borgia]

One wonders why you think there is a fundamental moral right of the govenrmnet to tax all private property... You seem to invest the govenrment with divine rights as if they are some kind of living entity that exists somewhere between God in heaven and mortal men on earth...

Or maybe Im giving you more credit than I should... Maybe to you the government IS God in heaven...

What? I think our society votes and we form a govt. Nothing divine about that. At the moment, we have a certain amount of money that the govt spends and I would like to see a balanced budget instead of passing the debt on to future generations. Right now, about 7% of revenue goes to servicing the debt. Imagine all the tax cuts that could be enabled if that were not eating into revenue?

[Rhino]

Ah, but the exemption has gone up since then. Here is the schedule:

.......Consult the above chart taken directly from the IRS. Your $2M could be passed on tax-free.You're still missing the point. I'm not rich.

You know what I am going to ask, right? :) Cite?You can't tell me you haven't seen that argument before. You can probably find it right here on this site. God knows we've debated it ad nauseum.

Valiant words but two problems:

1. You have not shown that the loss of revenue would be offset.As I said, I don't really care if it is. Double taxation is not justified. Period.

2. How easy it is to say the govt does not need the money. Sorry, that is a cop-out unless you reduce spending.I never said that. I said the government needing money is not reason for double taxation. Plain and simple.

So a lot of estates in this range were subject to the estate tax. All right. But what effective percentage did they pay? My guess is they paid a very low percentage to taxes for their estate. considering at least half the inheiritance had a tax rate of 0%.Again, you miss the point. A lot of people who are not rich could be subject to the tax. I'm happy they raised the ceiling, but no ceiling is acceptable if it double taxes assets. If no income tax has ever been paid on the assets, then an income tax is fair. But if the assets have already been taxed, they should not be taxed again. They should also not be taxed at a confiscatory rate. Additionally, if the assets had previously been in a tax free or tax deferred status, they should remain that way as long as they are in investment vehicles that qualify for that status. Those tax categories exist for a reason, and the reason does not change if the assets are passed on to heirs.

[DoctorDoom]

Q: what's the difference between a liberal and a leech?
A: the leech dosn't keep feeding when you die.

[Borgia]

I never said that. I said the government needing money is not reason for double taxation. Plain and simple.

And I think that is lazy policy. Eliminate a tax but make no cuts in spending. You can think something is wrong but it is also your duty to ameliorate the loss in revenue due to you changing the system.


Again, you miss the point. A lot of people who are not rich could be subject to the tax.
And here I thougth you wanted to taxes to be blind of class? But now you complain that non-rich people would be subject to the tax? Anyway, I disagree since the limit is going up to $3.5 million in a couple of years. You may not think that is rich but most people do. Someone could live off the interest alone.


I'm happy they raised the ceiling, but no ceiling is acceptable if it double taxes assets. If no income tax has ever been paid on the assets, then an income tax is fair. But if the assets have already been taxed, they should not be taxed again. They should also not be taxed at a confiscatory rate. Additionally, if the assets had previously been in a tax free or tax deferred status, they should remain that way as long as they are in investment vehicles that qualify for that status. Those tax categories exist for a reason, and the reason does not change if the assets are passed on to heirs.

We will just have to differ in opinion. Let's revisit double taxation. I am taxed on my income, and then with my remaining money I buy a car and get taxed there. Do you want to eliminate that tax as well? Or I buy a TV and am taxed. Should we eliminate the double taxation there by gettinig rid of sales taxes? Why is it only the estate tax that raises your ire? Especially odd since you wioll never be subject to it.

[Borgia]

Q: what's the difference between a liberal and a leech?
A: the leech dosn't keep feeding when you die.

All right, so a liberal DOES stop feeding when you die. Fair enough.

[Rhino]

And I think that is lazy policy. Eliminate a tax but make no cuts in spending. You can think something is wrong but it is also your duty to ameliorate the loss in revenue due to you changing the system.You don't need to ameliorate something that is wrong. You just need to stop. I have no problem with collecting revenue where it is needed, but using revenue as an excuse to continue doing something wrong is morally bankrupt.

And here I thougth you wanted to taxes to be blind of class? But now you complain that non-rich people would be subject to the tax?I disagree with the premise that a tax should be considered fair based on the 'rich' label being bandied about willy nilly. It's a dumb argument.

Anyway, I disagree since the limit is going up to $3.5 million in a couple of years. You may not think that is rich but most people do. Someone could live off the interest alone.Great. Let them, since they earned it. I don't care if the limit is a billion. Double taxation is simply unfair, and deciding who deserves the 'rich' label is arbitrary and stupid.

We will just have to differ in opinion. Let's revisit double taxation. I am taxed on my income, and then with my remaining money I buy a car and get taxed there. Do you want to eliminate that tax as well? Or I buy a TV and am taxed. Should we eliminate the double taxation there by gettinig rid of sales taxes?I wasn't talking about sales tax. I was addressing income taxes. To my knowledge, you are the only one attempting to divert to sales taxes.

Why is it only the estate tax that raises your ire?It's an income tax, in many cases a double income tax.

Especially odd since you wioll never be subject to it.1. I will be affected by it, whether I myself ever pay it or not. My kids could be affected by it too.

2. Do you limit your concern only to subjects that directly affect you? I notice you are arguing this subject too. Should I assume that you will be subject to the estate tax? I'm not so arrogant or selfish that I can limit my concerns in such a way.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Well, we watched Reagan cut taxes as per your theorem, and yet neither he nor Bush (HW) ever cut spending. So we have seen a 12 year experiment using YOUR system and it failed.

No dice, loser.

Your idiocy may work on those less informed, but allow me to educate you. During Reagan's and Herbert Walker's presidencies exactly who had majority power? It wasn't until 1994 that Republicans were able to gain majority control, the first time in 40 YEARS! And then they kept it in 1996, a nearly 70 year trend reversal!

The entire Contract with America was the philosophy of Ronald Reagan. All of his speeches were highlights of this gain in new power structure, sadly and ironically the Republican majority that both Reagan and HWB lacked.

Look at welfare reform, one of the CWA bullet points. It was a nearly 30 year odyssey, a philosophical push for change begun by Reagan, that Clinton vetoed TWICE, but was forced into signing in 1996 when he saw the historical political shift and knew that he was a lame duck unless he began to cave in to those demands. This works into his favor, for even though he was ideologically opposed to welfare reform, like the political whore he was, he traded in his integrity for popularity and then claimed credit for it.

You can look at the entire CWA platform and point to Reagan's leadership including BALANCED BUDGETS & tax cuts(yes, you can have them both, my friend), and a strong kickass national defense.

Even going on the assumption that George Bush is a spending aberration(and he is), which party's historical magna charta, its overall body of thought, is more geared toward restraint? Let's go back 30 years so that we can have the widest possible arc. Which party campaigns on freebies and which one campaigns on thrift? Which party campaigns on a barrelful of promises and which one campaigns on realities that must be overcome? Which party campaigns on money(taxation) as the solution to social ills(the federal sugar daddy) and which one campaigns on entrepreneurial drive and self betterment? One only need look at New Orleans to understand the wide ideological differences between the two parties; their theories, their frameworks and body of thought.


Might I acquaint you with the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin:


Don't you think slathering on Grey Poupon on top of your caviar is a bit over the top? Or do you always speak like Josh Bernstein? Here's a hint: Pretense isn't necessary on an anonymous board. Might I acquaint you with the word?

pre·tense http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dpretense) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (prhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifnshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gif, prhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif-thttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifnshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif)
n.

The act of pretending; a false appearance or action intended to deceive.
A false or studied show; an affectation: <CITE>a pretense of nonchalance.</CITE>
A professed but feigned reason or excuse; a pretext: <CITE>under false pretenses.</CITE>
Something imagined or pretended.
Mere show without reality; outward appearance.
A right asserted with or without foundation; a claim. See Synonyms at claim (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=claim).
The quality or state of being pretentious; ostentation.
Perhaps it is time to try MY strategy of spending cuts FIRST and then tax cuts?

So you're Congress now? Listen powerbroker, you are the political genius that exists in your own mind. Outside of your mind, nobody knows you exist. You are the tree that's falling in the forest when no one's around and all of your ideas are like one hand clapping. C'mon, clap louder. I can't hear you.

YOUR strategy has never been attempted because it goes against everything DC is for and how DC functions. In order to have spending cuts, you have to cut off one of its arms. You have to bleed it out. Clinton got lucky in that at the same time the Republican CWA came into power, dotcom funny money flooded the market. He was only able to reduce the deficit by surplus revenue, not by some kind of discipline. Let me clue you in, discipline does not exist in DC. You got that? It doesn't EXIST! You have to start with tax cuts and hope to God that you cause enough havoc that spending's balls are ripped off. And besides, tax cuts also mean more consumer spending and business reinvestment not to mention the ideological crime that most taxes are anyway. If you really want to yammer on about Mr. Franklin, I can guarantee you this. Benji understood more than you or I what taxation without representation meant. Unless you really think that any of our taxes go to paying down the debt anyway, heh heh, then you really are as naive as you sound.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Borgia is a typical liberal who wants to punish hard work and success with confiscatory taxes. As has been shown in the 1960s, the 1980s, and the 2000s, lowering the top marginal tax rates actually produced/is producing increased tax revenues. Of course, that's only logical, but logic is a foreign language to liberals, so I'll explain once aghin:

When the top marginal tax rates are lowered, those in the top tax brackets have more money to invest in expanding the economy and create more jobs. The return on those investments results in increased income for those in the upper brackets resulting in higher taxes. In addition, the people who are hired to fill those newly created jobs now become taxpayers, again resulting in increased tax revenues.

BTW, the ONLY fair tax is one where everyone pays the same tax rate on their income no matter their income. Of course, the fairest tax of all is the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/) - a national consumption tax/sales tax.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Contract With America Scorecard (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/scorecard.html).

[Borgia]

Your idiocy may work on those less informed, but allow me to educate you. During Reagan's and Herbert Walker's presidencies exactly who had majority power? It wasn't until 1994 that Republicans were able to gain majority control, the first time in 40 YEARS! And then they kept it in 1996, a nearly 70 year trend reversal!

CAn you educate me by explaining why the budgets that Reagan submitted were all larger than the previous year's budget? That they included no net cuts in spending? Here are REagan budget proposals. If you look closely, you will see they increase each and every year:

1982: $695
1983: $773
1984: $862
1985: $940
1986: $974
1987: $994
1988: $1024
1989: $1094

Now, I am no mathematician but I can see that the budget goes up each and every year that Reagan proposed one.


So you're Congress now? Listen powerbroker, you are the political genius that exists in your own mind. Outside of your mind, nobody knows you exist. You are the tree that's falling in the forest when no one's around and all of your ideas are like one hand clapping. C'mon, clap louder. I can't hear you.

You proposed a solution that is not working and we have years of evidence to show that. Again, look to the wit and wisdom of Franklin for guidance there.

It seems you are more interested in continuing along the path we have been on for decades even though they have failed. You bow down to the way things are and repeat your mantra, "I cannot change it". How's that working for you?

[Borgia]

Borgia is a typical liberal who wants to punish hard work and success with confiscatory taxes. As has been shown in the 1960s, the 1980s, and the 2000s, lowering the top marginal tax rates actually produced/is producing increased tax revenues. Of course, that's only logical, but logic is a foreign language to liberals, so I'll explain once aghin:

And in the 90's when Clinton raised it, revenues rose. Wow! How could that happen? Doesn't that run counter to your theory?

[DesertFox]

My tax platform: 10% flat income tax on all income (anything left after deducting provable losses). No other deductions. If you make less than 75k per annum from all sources after losses, no income tax.

[Borgia]

My tax platform: 10% flat income tax on all income (anything left after deducting provable losses). No other deductions. If you make less than 75k per annum from all sources after losses, no income tax.

My taxes go up dramatically under your system.

Question, if I earn $74k my taxes are zero, yet if I earn $76k my takes are $7600? It seems you have a huge disincentive for people to earn over $75k.

[DesertFox]

Or to earn much, much more.

[Borgia]

Or to earn much, much more.

True, but you have to feel bad for the guy working a desk job who earns $70k and receives a big 10% promotion to $77k only to watch his net pay go from $70k to $69k.

[Borgia]

Another problem, it does not account for inflation. At some point in the future, you'll be taxing pretty much everyone at 10%. Do you keep this or do you adjust the $75k higher every once in a while? If you peg it higher evey once in a while then that poor schmuck who suddenly saw his salary go down may be victimized multiple times. :unsmile:

[Rhino]

My taxes go up dramatically under your system.

Question, if I earn $74k my taxes are zero, yet if I earn $76k my takes are $7600? It seems you have a huge disincentive for people to earn over $75k.Why not? With greater power comes greater responsibility.

[Borgia]

Why not? With greater power comes greater responsibility.

Touché. :claps:

[Rhino]

True, but you have to feel bad for the guy working a desk job who earns $70k and receives a big 10% promotion to $77k only to watch his net pay go from $70k to $69k.That happens now.

Another problem, it does not account for inflation. At some point in the future, you'll be taxing pretty much everyone at 10%. Do you keep this or do you adjust the $75k higher every once in a while? If you peg it higher evey once in a while then that poor schmuck who suddenly saw his salary go down may be victimized multiple times. :unsmile:Not a rosy scenario, to be sure, but that happens now too.

[queue]

From the original article:The estate tax currently has a top rate of 46 percent. The $2 million eligibility threshold is scheduled to gradually increase to $3.5 million before the tax is repealed in 2010 -- only to reappear in full the following year with an exemption amount of $1 million and rates as high as 55 percent.(Emphasis added is mine.)

So if nothing is done about the estate tax, the eligibility threshold will decrease and the percent taken is increased in 2011 from the current levels.

From a 1998 article by Joint Economic Committee Study titled The Economics of the Estate Tax (http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/estattax/estattax.htm)VI. Conclusion

This paper has documented the extensive costs associated with the federal estate tax. The detrimental effects of the estate tax are grossly disproportionate to the modest amount federal revenue it raises (if it raises any net revenue at all). Estate taxes result in a large amount of wasted economic activity. Over its lifetime, the presence of the estate tax has cost the economy roughly one-half a trillion dollars in capital stock. Moreover, the estate tax destabilizes family businesses at one of their most vulnerable points, the succession from one generation to the next. The enormous liquidity demands of the estate tax have contributed to the break up of thousands of small businesses as well as the destruction of environmentally sensitive land. In generating these outcomes, the estate tax has violated the basic principles of a good tax system – simplicity, fairness and efficiency.

If the estate tax generated sufficiently large benefits, then an argument could be made to justify its existence. However, all the evidence indicates that the estate tax has no redeeming qualities. There is no theoretical or empirical basis to suggest that the estate tax promotes fairness or reduces inequality. In addition, research indicates that the deduction for charitable bequests stimulates little or no additional giving. Even the $23 billion in revenue it raises is illusory, since estate tax avoidance activities likely generate equally large revenue losses under the income tax.

The estate tax is an unfortunate feature of the current federal tax system. The estate tax's punitive tax rates are not only the highest of all federal taxes (reaching nearly 80 percent), but are imposed at the most inappropriate of times – the death of a loved one. As if mourning such a loss were not enough, the federal government worsens the pain by seeking to confiscate upwards of one-half of all the decedent's accomplishments and successes.

This final injurious grievance simply strengthens the conclusion that the estate tax generates costs to taxpayers, the economy and the environment that far exceed any potential benefits that it might arguably produce. The balance of evidence reviewed here suggests that this nation's forefathers followed the correct policy: in the absence of a national emergency, there is no compelling reason to warrant the permanent imposition of the estate tax. Death and taxes may indeed be inevitable, but these twin hardships need not always converge with consequences as burdensome and destructive as those of the estate tax.

[Borgia]

That happens now.

It does? Explain the scenario for me.

[Rhino]

Moreover, the estate tax destabilizes family businesses at one of their most vulnerable points, the succession from one generation to the next.I had completely forgotten about that. I knew a family back in Mississippi that had to sell the family business (a pharmacy) when the father died because they couldn't afford to pay the taxes. They wanted to continue it. The daughter was also a pharmacist. The town even tried to find a way to save the business (it was the only drug store in town), but they were powerless to stop it from closing. They had something like 25 employees that lost their jobs too. Everybody had to drive 12 miles to a drug store in the next town after that. I talked to Wilma (the daughter) afterwards, and she told me the store had low debt and was doing well, but there wasn't enough liquidity to pay the taxes even if they re-mortgaged the store. Most everybody had assumed they had lots of debt, but they had very little. I wonder how much taxes they lost when they closed that store? I'm sure it was a lot more than they collected in estate tax.

[DesertFox]

70k to 69k -- this point (one that corresponds to it) is reached in every tax scheme. That's not a strike against mine. In fact, in my tax scheme it's a 1-70th reduction, and that's a whole lot less than happened to me when I began earning bigger paychecks.

[Rhino]

It does? Explain the scenario for me.1. Get a raise.
2. Move to higher tax bracket.
3. Pay more in increased taxes than the raise.

Happened to me twice.

[Borgia]

1. Get a raise.
2. Move to higher tax bracket.
3. Pay more in increased taxes than the raise.

Happened to me twice.

I strongly suggest you switch accountants then. I am serious about this.

Please provide an example of this. Make one up and I will show you where you went wrong.

[Borgia]

Rhino:

You aren't under the notion that when you switch from a 15% tax bracket to a 22% tax bracket that you suddenly start paying 22% on all your income? No. You pay 15% on your income up to the limit of that tax bracket and pay 22% on the remainder. It is all there in the 1040 instruction booklet and they account for that in the tax tables.

Thus, any raise you get will never be offset by an increase in taxes.

[Trevelyan]

Your approach is unfair and unequal... It is prejudicial against those who have built greater wealth and it discourages any motivation to achieve excellence...


Hah, can people like Paris Hilton really be placed in the "excellence" category? There should be some type of criteria to dictate when the Estates Tax applies if it were to be rolled back at all, and I believe people like that should be hit up for the Estates Tax plus a multiplier. :grin:

[Rhino]

I strongly suggest you switch accountants then. I am serious about this.

Please provide an example of this. Make one up and I will show you where you went wrong.I can't afford an accountant, and I don't keep tax records that far back. It's been several years since the last time.

Thus, any raise you get will never be offset by an increase in taxes.You need to study your tax booklet closer. As an example (not mine), if you look at the tax booklet for 2005, you'll see that the tax on $57,000 AGI is $12 more than on $56,995 AGI. Not exactly realistic probably, but you can see that tax paid can indeed go up farther than income did. And it does sometimes. I don't really have a great problem with that, besides not being in favor of a graduated tax. It goes with the territory. But having taxes increase more than income, such as with the flat tax scenario above, is not at all a new concept. It happens.

[queue]

Rhino:

You aren't under the notion that when you switch from a 15% tax bracket to a 22% tax bracket that you suddenly start paying 22% on all your income? No. You pay 15% on your income up to the limit of that tax bracket and pay 22% on the remainder. It is all there in the 1040 instruction booklet and they account for that in the tax tables.

Thus, any raise you get will never be offset by an increase in taxes.Unless you switch from being a full-time employee making 70k per year to being self-employed making 72k per year in which case you go from paying 7.65% in Social Security (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%) out of the 70k to 15.3% (12.4% for Social Security and 2.9% in Medicare) from the 72K.

[DesertFox]

To my mind, the smartest possible alternative to my flat tax scheme would be a no-taxes-on-business and zero-capital-gains-tax scheme. You own a business, you assume all risk and you keep whatever you make. If you work for somebody else, you pay taxes on what you earn.

Besides encouraging business, this idea would openly promote entrepreneurship.

[Tazeeyore]

Why not? With greater power comes greater responsibility.

My defn of rich is anyone earning over $200k per year is rich. Below that is middle class. How's that?

Right out of the Communist Manifesto pal. I don't think so. Everyone whould pay the same percentage if we are going to keep this stupid system. A national sales tax would automatically cause the effect you so ignorantly desire. The more you spend the more you pay. But otherwise leave the taxes at the same rate for everyone. That also means that your idiotic statement about responsibility already taxes wealthier citizens more than others. 10% of 5,000,000 is a lot more than 10% of 10,000. Or is that too hard for you to understand. And by the way, the top one percent pay over half of all income based taxes collected.

[Borgia]

You need to study your tax booklet closer. As an example (not mine), if you look at the tax booklet for 2005, you'll see that the tax on $57,000 AGI is $12 more than on $56,995 AGI. Not exactly realistic probably, but you can see that tax paid can indeed go up farther than income did. And it does sometimes. I don't really have a great problem with that, besides not being in favor of a graduated tax. It goes with the territory. But having taxes increase more than income, such as with the flat tax scenario above, is not at all a new concept. It happens.

Well, yes, in the table itself there is that discrepenacy since they use a table and not a straight percentage. I had assumed you were talking about getting more than a $5 raise though. :)

Using the 2004 table as a guide, the worst case of this would be if you earned $99,950 and got a raise to $99,951. You would end up paying $13 extra dollars in taxes for the $1 raise.

I consider that more of a technicality than a substantive point though. So in general, if your raise is more than $13 you will be assured of having an increase in your net income. I don't hear about too many yearly raises being less than $13 though. :)

[Borgia]

Unless you switch from being a full-time employee making 70k per year to being self-employed making 72k per year in which case you go from paying 7.65% in Social Security (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%) out of the 70k to 15.3% (12.4% for Social Security and 2.9% in Medicare) from the 72K.

I admit to being unfamiliar with self-employment rules.

[Borgia]

Right out of the Communist Manifesto pal.

Actually, I was paraphrasing Marvel comics (Spiderman) but if you think Stan Lee was involved in writing the Communist Manifesto good luck with that.


And by the way, the top one percent pay over half of all income based taxes collected.

Which they should if they earn half the money, right?

[Rhino]

Well, yes, in the table itself there is that discrepenacy since they use a table and not a straight percentage. I had assumed you were talking about getting more than a $5 raise though. :)

Using the 2004 table as a guide, the worst case of this would be if you earned $99,950 and got a raise to $99,951. You would end up paying $13 extra dollars in taxes for the $1 raise.

I consider that more of a technicality than a substantive point though. So in general, if your raise is more than $13 you will be assured of having an increase in your net income. I don't hear about too many yearly raises being less than $13 though. :)As I said, maybe not a realistic example, but it proves the point. It can, and does, happen, so it's not exactly something new. I could have pulled a wider income spread, but the point would have been the same.

[Rhino]

Which they should if they earn half the money, right?They don't.

[Borgia]

As I said, maybe not a realistic example, but it proves the point. It can, and does, happen, so it's not exactly something new. I could have pulled a wider income spread, but the point would have been the same.

My point is that it only happens if your yearly raise is less than $13. It is a technicality, surely you are not saying it is a valid point?

You mention wider income spread, please advise what you mean by that. I found the worst case scenario (oops, raise that to $16 for married filing separately)

By the way, none of this occurs as you enter higher tax brackets (rates). It occurs solely because the IRS forces you to use the table. Again, worst case is a $16 loss for a $1 raise. If you get a $16 raise you break even. If you get a $17 raise you earn one extra dollar after taxes.

And again, that is only if you are at the cusp of a table row.

[Borgia]

They don't.

I kow Limbaugh had a table on this and they did earn less than half the money. But not too much less.

[Rhino]

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea how it happened. I just know that it did. My wife would be happy to give you an earful on it. She was pissed! Maybe there was a change in the tax rates for that year. But as I said, it doesn't really matter. Having taxes increase more than income is not an unknown event. It does happen. So trying to depict it as a heretofore unknown event, as you did above, just doesn't hold water. That is the only point I'm making.

[Rhino]

....that is only if you are at the cusp .....Don't go talkin dirty now! :limp:

[queue]

I admit to being unfamiliar with self-employment rules.The tax rate of Social Security is 12.4%. The tax rate for Medicare is 2.9%. The employee is responsible for half and the employer is responsible for half. When a person is self-employed then that person is both the employee and the employer and is responsible for the entire rate.

There is a cap on the Social Security part of the tax. Only the first $94,200 of a person's income is taxed for Social Security.


Link (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10022.html)

[Borgia]

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea how it happened. I just know that it did. My wife would be happy to give you an earful on it. She was pissed! Maybe there was a change in the tax rates for that year. But as I said, it doesn't really matter. Having taxes increase more than income is not an unknown event. It does happen. So trying to depict it as a heretofore unknown event, as you did above, just doesn't hold water. That is the only point I'm making.

I've been thinking about where this confusion lies and I think you have the right of it. It probably was due to a tax increase, from one year to the next, and not due to income bracket change. Or it could be due to certain deductions that you had one eyar that could not claim the following year. That would also increase your tax bill from one year to the next and give the illusion that it was income bracket based.

[Rhino]

Not really what we're talking about, but I thought this was interesting.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/alanreynolds/2005/06/16/15755.html

[Borgia]

The tax rate of Social Security is 12.4%. The tax rate for Medicare is 2.9%. The employee is responsible for half and the employer is responsible for half. When a person is self-employed then that person is both the employee and the employer and is responsible for the entire rate.

There is a cap on the Social Security part of the tax. Only the first $94,200 of a person's income is taxed for Social Security.


Link (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10022.html)

Good to know. But it would be sheer folly to compare simple salaries when going from employed to self-employed. Vacation days, holidays, insurance SS...so many things covered by your employer that one needs to consider when comparing.

[Naturalized-Texan]

And in the 90's when Clinton raised it, revenues rose. Wow! How could that happen? Doesn't that run counter to your theory?
Well, eventually, the Clinton tax increase led to the Clinton Recession that President Bush inherited. BTW, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, there actually was a Clinton Recession - albeit a short one of only 8 months. For more information, look here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=35172).

[Borgia]

Not really what we're talking about, but I thought this was interesting.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/alanreynolds/2005/06/16/15755.html

I agree it was interesting, albeit a tad confusing too! :) I think he quibbles a bit here and there about what I would consider somewhat insignificant points but I don't disagree with some of his points.

[Naturalized-Texan]

True, but you have to feel bad for the guy working a desk job who earns $70k and receives a big 10% promotion to $77k only to watch his net pay go from $70k to $69k.
The way it should work is that he would only pay the 10% on income over $75K. Dick Armey's flat tax proposal would have only taxed married couples with no children who had an income of more than $35K. I liked that proposal, but I like the Fair tax proposal better.

[Maggie_T]

I see that class envy (or wealth envy, if you prefer) is still alive and well.

And liberals want to convince us they are not communists. :rolleyes:

[Rhino]

I kow Limbaugh had a table on this and they did earn less than half the money. But not too much less.Actually, quite a bit less. In 2003, they had 16.77% of total AGI, but paid 34.27% of income taxes. Of course, that's only individual returns, and I don't have any more recent figures.

[Borgia]

Well, eventually, the Clinton tax increase led to the Clinton Recession that President Bush inherited. BTW, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, there actually was a Clinton Recession - albeit a short one of only 8 months. For more information, look here (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=35172).

No, you are wrong. In actuality, the "Clinton Recession" you refer to was caused by the decrease in tax rates under Reagan. It takes a little while for those tax cuts to take effect but when they did, we saw a mini-recession.

And the Bush (HW) tax increases paved the way for the glory years of fiscal responsibility under Clinton. This was further augmented by Clinton's tax increase whereupon we had so many great years before the Republicans finally gained control of both Senate and House ('95) and from that point on it was straight into the Bush (W) recession once the Republican policies took effect. ;)

[Borgia]

Actually, quite a bit less. In 2003, they had 16.77% of total AGI, but paid 34.27% of income taxes. Of course, that's only individual returns, and I don't have any more recent figures.

Cool, can you source this so I can look at the info?

[Rhino]

Are you actually trying to say that higher taxes stimulate the economy?????

[Rhino]

Cool, can you source this so I can look at the info?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

[Naturalized-Texan]

Actually, the top 1%, with incomes over $295,495, earn 16.77% of the total income, but pay 34.27% of the taxes. In other words, they are grossly overtaxed. If the income tax system were fair, the top 1% would pay 16.77% of the taxes. The top 5%, with incomes over $130,080, earn 31.18% of the income, but pay 54.35% of the taxes. That is certainly unfair.

[Borgia]

Are you actually trying to say that higher taxes stimulate the economy?????

Clinton raised taxes and we saw revenue increase dramatically for the following seven years. Hey, you can't argue anecdotal evidence! ;)

[Borgia]

Actually, the top 1%, with incomes over $295,495, earn 16.77% of the total income, but pay 34.27% of the taxes. In other words, they are grossly overtaxed. If the income tax system were fair, the top 1% would pay 16.77% of the taxes. The top 5%, with incomes over $130,080, earn 31.18% of the income, but pay 54.35% of the taxes. That is certainly unfair.

Um, problem with your methodology if equalizing taxes. The dirt poor would see their taxes rise from 0% to some quantity.

Also, you ignore all the flat taxes that already exist out there - sales, gas, property etc. These taxes are shared (proportional) equally by all so the poor person pays a much higher percentage of his income for sales tax or gas tax or SS than the rich person. A graduated income tax is agood way to compensate for this disparity.

[Borgia]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Thx, good stuff here. I'll bookmark it.

[queue]

Good to know. But it would be sheer folly to compare simple salaries when going from employed to self-employed. Vacation days, holidays, insurance SS...so many things covered by your employer that one needs to consider when comparing.Vacation, holidays, sick days, and any other paid days off would be included in the annual salary whether self-employed or not. Insurance and retirement plans are a different issue.

I was just supplying a scenario where a person's income can increase and the taxes imposed by the federal government more than offset that person's increase in income.

[Rhino]

Hey, you can't argue anecdotal evidence! ;)LOL!

[Borgia]

Vacation, holidays, sick days, and any other paid days off would be included in the annual salary whether self-employed or not. Insurance and retirement plans are a different issue.

I was just supplying a scenario where a person's income can increase and the taxes imposed by the federal government more than offset that person's increase in income.

I am assuming you get paid depending on how much you work if self-employed. You can't take 8 vacation days one year and take 80 vacation days the next and expect to earn the same amount. Or at least not for most sefl-employed people I know.

My rebuttal is that when you switch to self-employed you should have factored those "invisible" items into your pay when you were employed, for a valid point of comparison.

[queue]

I am assuming you get paid depending on how much you work if self-employed. You can't take 8 vacation days one year and take 80 vacation days the next and expect to earn the same amount. Or at least not for most sefl-employed people I know.

My rebuttal is that when you switch to self-employed you should have factored those "invisible" items into your pay when you were employed, for a valid point of comparison.I was going from the employee's point of view and not the employer's point of view. From the employee's point of view there would be a tax increase (from 7.65% to 15.3%). From an employer's point of view there would not be a tax increase.

[dPrasse]

Well , borgia ... you may think $200,000 and less is middle class , but , according to your dummycrat friends in DC , anyone much over poverty was classed as rich and undeserving of tax cuts ... yet , the poor that paid NO taxes were supposed to get a hand out !! Maybe you love to pay taxes , but , most folks don't .

As far as Inheritance on a farm .... more and more farms are approaching the 1,000 acre size , just to keep a positive cash flow going ...easy passing the $2m ... many places near expansion , farms are valued much higher ...

And besides wtf difference does it make to you or any of your other jealous dimmycrats what someone inherits ?? Most folks with any kind of wealth actually worked for it , and their families most likely "paid for it" as that fortune was being amassed , so , I'd say the family should inherit it w/o the gubbermint grabbing a large share of it ...

Oh , in case you are wondering , I don't expect to inherit anything ... so ,I'm not trying to protect a "future fortune" ....

[DesertFox]

Well, I'm expecting Bill Gates to leave his entire fortune to me if he predeceases me.

A pity he's early 40's and I'm late 50's.

[Beowulf]

I disagree with the estate tax for a few reasons. One, property tax has been paid everymonth for every year the dwelling has been around and has gone up every year. I think the owner has paid enough on that ground.
If the person or person who built up the estate pass on and leave it to a child of theirs, why should they have to pay a large chunk of tax money when the estate has paid a fortune in taxes over the years? That child will be picking up that ever increasing property tax bill. If they sell it, they will be paying sales tax.
And as pointed out, and I agree, taxing people who get wealthy only discourages people from working hard and succeeding. I know I would feel that I'm doing it to pay Uncle Sam even more. So then, what is the point? Self satisfaction in personal accomplishment of their job? Many of us get that in what we do now. I work for my family, NOT the government or people on lazyfare. As I've state before, IT'S NOT MY JOB TO CARRY THE LAZY ON MY BACK!!!

[Wyatt_Junker]

CAn you educate me by explaining why the budgets that Reagan submitted were all larger than the previous year's budget? That they included no net cuts in spending? Here are REagan budget proposals. If you look closely, you will see they increase each and every year:

1982: $695
1983: $773
1984: $862
1985: $940
1986: $974
1987: $994
1988: $1024
1989: $1094

Now, I am no mathematician but I can see that the budget goes up each and every year that Reagan proposed one.


You mean besides the fact that each of these proposals were in effect used to moderate a democratically controlled Congress(ie concessions)? And besides defense spending increases?(this is called good spending) And besides the fact that the American population has been uniformly growing(yes, even in the 80's)? Population stats alone, BTW, would suggest that budgets should always grow. The real question is how slow that growth is. A 'cut' is really just a rehtorical short for an application of the brakes and retarding the RATE of such growth. Its all in proportion to the size of the GDP, birth rates and what exactly the budget is focusing its spending on. Let's talk about that.

But first, let's back up.

After inheriting a mess of entitlement and social spending programs which led to increasing expectation(social security, medicaid, etc.) from the Carter regime's budgets in '81, Reagan began to initiate cuts. However, those 'cuts' had to be grandfathered in, otherwise there would be starving geriatrics in the streets. Its the same thing in California. Arnold can't do jack shit about what his predecessor, Grey Davis did by promising new SEIU and CALPERS out-of-control, mind-blowing, dreamy pensions which were based on false dotcom money projections. Its impossible. You are stuck with it. Think turning a ship here. You spin the wheel and the boat doesn't turn until 30 seconds later.

Even though Reagan imposed major corrective cuts in social programs, it was an impossibility to just nuke the programs outright back to 1981 levels, especially with so many people now relying on them. When you stop something, you have to put on the brakes. Reagan did that. Meanwhile, your vessel keeps moving forward even though the turbines have stopped spinning. Compound this with Reagan's defense build up, the S & L scandals(which Congress had to pay back) and voila.


You proposed a solution that is not working and we have years of evidence to show that. Again, look to the wit and wisdom of Franklin for guidance there.

Reagan's policy worked wonderfully to get us out of the Carter malaise. Trust me, I know. The first bankruptcy my family filed was under Jiminey Cricket Carter's presidency, and as a boy, watching as our lawyer graciously allowed us to let him drive off in our Benz as a down payment for his retainer.


It seems you are more interested in continuing along the path we have been on for decades even though they have failed. You bow down to the way things are and repeat your mantra, "I cannot change it".

Again, let the lead start with tax cuts themself. Everything else will fall into place. If you take the ability of DC to spend our money by whittling down the kitty, given enough time, spending will also follow suit. It won't be exactly synchronousness, but it will plane out over time. Again, there is no such thing as fiscal responsiblity in the nation's capitol. Take. It. Away. From. Them. And as far as Ben is concerned, he should know all this already. No taxation without representation. Anything short of that, let them starve.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Clinton raised taxes and we saw revenue increase dramatically for the following seven years. Hey, you can't argue anecdotal evidence! ;)

How many times do we have to go over this one again? :crazy:

[Rhino]

How many times do we have to go over this one again? :crazy:Not to worry. He was joking with me.

[Borgia]

You mean besides the fact that each of these proposals were in effect used to moderate a democratically controlled Congress(ie concessions)?
It seems you conjure an excuse for anything Republican. The Carter years we did see growth in spending. Reagan reduced the growth in spending but his deficit still kept growing.


And besides defense spending increases?(this is called good spending) And besides the fact that the American population has been uniformly growing(yes, even in the 80's)? Population stats alone, BTW, would suggest that budgets should always grow. The real question is how slow that growth is.
Yes, we need to account for these factors and I would posit that the best way is to use inflation adjusted dollars. Funny how you come to your conclusions without actually doing the analysis. As usual, it falls to me to prove or disprove your thesis. So let's take a look at what the average rate of growth of budgets were for each President.

Carter: +3.6% / year
Reagan: +2.6% / year
Bush HW: +1.9% / year
Clinton: +1.5% / year
Bush W: +4.6% / year

We see that Reagan slowed the growth in spending from the Carter years. Bush HW then slowed the growth in spending from the Reagan years. Then Clinton slowed the growth in spending from thet Bush years. Really, Clinton was the best cutter of them all it appears. Then under Bush W we see explosive growth in spending, higher than any recent President.

Now, I am sure you will all attempt to say Clinton's record is due to the Republican congress. So let's look at the years under Clinton where the GOP did not control Congress (94-95 budgets, The GOP took control in 95 but the 95 budget was passed in 94, also the 93 budget is ascribed to Bush HW as it passed under his leadership)

So for the time period where the GOP did not control Congress and under Clinton we see:

Clinton: +1.4%

We actually see Clinton, without being hobbled by a Republican controlled Congress, was already reducing the growth of spending more than the rest of the Presidents and at a high reduction of growth than when the Republicans took over.

Interesting what happens when you run the numbers. Wyatt, you provided a long string of rhetoric but the numbers don't support you. I am beginning to see why you don't like to actually run the analysis with numbers. Far easier to say something and not have to prove it.

[Borgia]

Not to worry. He was joking with me.

I was kind of funning with NT's love of anecdotal evidence and providing a bit of my own to show it is rather useless and can show anything.

Someone DID perform a statistical analysis of the top marginal tax rate and revenues to see if cuts or increases in the top rate had correlation with increases or decreases in revenue. They found no correlation.

Do I think tax cuts increase revenue? It is a tough one. Tax cuts and tax increases BOTH increase revenue, I guess it is by how much.

[Lazarus]

I want to thank all of you who have kept Borgia entertained in this thread...

:bdh: :licky:

[Rhino]

Republicans Reach Deal on Bill to Extend Tax Cuts

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress reached agreement Tuesday on a $70 billion measure to extend tax breaks for investors and prevent more middle-income families from being hit by a tax aimed at the wealthy.

The bill would hand President Bush one of his top tax priorities, a two-year extension of the reduced 15 percent tax rate for capital gains and dividends, currently set to expire at the end of 2008. Republicans credit the tax cuts, enacted in 2003, with boosting economic growth and creating many jobs.

The measure also would keep 15 million families from being hit this year with the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to make sure the wealthy paid taxes but is ensnaring more and more middle-income families because it is not indexed for inflation.

The accord paves the way for House approval of the measure as early as Wednesday. The Senate could clear the bill for Bush's desk by week's end.

"This is a responsible bill that protects families and small business owners from tax increases, while also providing investors with a bigger window of certainty — critical to continued economic growth," said Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif........http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194811,00.html

[Kathy29]

How tax cuts work.

Tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and 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 would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $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." Dinner for the ten now cost just $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 men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They 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 two?

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!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Wyatt_Junker]

It seems you conjure an excuse for anything Republican. The Carter years we did see growth in spending. Reagan reduced the growth in spending but his deficit still kept growing.

Then why did I have to bring up the concept of the deceleration of spending? Answer: You didn't mention it. All you showed were budget proposals, as if the numbers alone(apart from that) meant something. That's the problem with numbers. They don't frame reality in and ignore other variables by merely cropping information into sections for the sake of rhetoric.


Yes, we need to account for these factors


Yes, we do. And even here, you are ignoring large swaths of recent history. Let's look at Clinton's early history and not just 'the numbers'.


and I would posit that the best way is to use inflation adjusted dollars. Funny how you come to your conclusions without actually doing the analysis. As usual, it falls to me to prove or disprove your thesis. So let's take a look at what the average rate of growth of budgets were for each President.

Carter: +3.6% / year
Reagan: +2.6% / year
Bush HW: +1.9% / year
Clinton: +1.5% / year
Bush W: +4.6% / year

We see that Reagan slowed the growth in spending from the Carter years. Bush HW then slowed the growth in spending from the Reagan years. Then Clinton slowed the growth in spending from thet Bush years. Really, Clinton was the best cutter of them all it appears. Then under Bush W we see explosive growth in spending, higher than any recent President.



First, Clinton was immediately bitchslapped upon taking office. His 'Universal Healthcare' package was soundly clotheslined. If it wasn't, what do you think that would have done to the budget? As you recall, this was a shattering awakening for BJ and his socialist spending agenda. He got his political cherry popped. It wasn't easy getting a body check your first year into office.

Second, after the S & L's had been dealt with, we see in '91 an economic upswing, and subsequently a decline in the 93, 94 and 95 deficits which had nothing to do with Clinton's genius but to normal business expansionism. Couple this with Clinton's tax increase which helped to top off the SS and medicaid coffers.

Now, what else was going on? How about Clinton's illusion that the world was a safe place and the Cold War was over? Clinton began to shutter military bases faster than the Sambo's restaurant chain. Military spending in all areas folded up almost overnight like a card table.

As much as I disagree with Bush's current spending(the Africa AIDS package, the prescription drug benefit program, even the Katrina handouts) we also have to back-to-back this discussion with a couple things. A couple BIG things. No, let's make that 3 large things. 1) An actual RECESSION in full swing. 2) 9/11 and 3) The WOT resulting from 9/11.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Thousand Points of Light Jr., even though he has an R next to his name, seeing these threats still dropped the ball on tradtionally republican frugality re social spending. I'm not defending his social spending programs. They are bizarre addictions to I'm not sure what. They certainly don't help his party, let alone the American bond market nor the general mood of the investment community. And you will not find me defending that, however, whereas Clinton's middle class tax cuts did not go back towards business reinvestment, at least Bush Jr.'s upper class tax cuts do.


Interesting what happens when you run the numbers. Wyatt, you provided a long string of rhetoric but the numbers don't support you. I am beginning to see why you don't like to actually run the analysis with numbers. Far easier to say something and not have to prove it.

And perhaps context will alleviate your addiction to numerals next time.

[Borgia]

Then why did I have to bring up the concept of the deceleration of spending? Answer: You didn't mention it. All you showed were budget proposals,

Originally we talked about Reagan budgets cuts. Then changed it to decellerations of growth which is NOT the same thing. A cut to a budget is less money, not lowering thew rate at which it grows. At least that is the Republican defn.


Yes, we do. And even here, you are ignoring large swaths of recent history. Let's look at Clinton's early history and not just 'the numbers'.

And the excuses and spin begin...


First, Clinton was immediately bitchslapped upon taking office. His 'Universal Healthcare' package was soundly clotheslined. If it wasn't, what do you think that would have done to the budget...

Funny, you did not mention any required CONTEXT when you made your original claim.

First I said this to you:


Can you educate me by explaining why the budgets that Reagan submitted were all larger than the previous year's budget?

To which you responded:


The real question is how slow that growth is.
Now I showed how slow the growth was for each President which showed Clinton slowed the rate of growth of the budget the most, far better than Reagan, Bush HW or Bush W.

You are the one who said that reducing the growth of the budget was the factor to judge upon. So I calculated it and now you start making excuses cause you don't like the answer.

You really should have known the answer before you assumed that Reagan would look good. Now you just look a tad desperate as you make up excuse after excuse for why Reagan, Bush, and Bush all look inferior to Clinton by your measure.

[Lazarus]

How tax cuts work...
Tax cuts in terms everyone can understand....
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!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Dat wuz bootiful... Thanx Kat...

[Rhino]

Dat wuz bootiful... Thanx Kat...Got me all misty eyed. Sniff! :evilgrin:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Um, problem with your methodology if equalizing taxes. The dirt poor would see their taxes rise from 0% to some quantity.
False! If you would look at either the flat tax proposal or the Fair Tax proposal, you would see that lower income people would pay no taxes at all.

Also, you ignore all the flat taxes that already exist out there - sales, gas, property etc. These taxes are shared (proportional) equally by all so the poor person pays a much higher percentage of his income for sales tax or gas tax or SS than the rich person. A graduated income tax is agood way to compensate for this disparity.
See my comment above.

[Naturalized-Texan]

And in the 90's when Clinton raised it, revenues rose. Wow! How could that happen? Doesn't that run counter to your theory?
Your statement that revenues increased under BJ Clinton jogged my memory about the budgets of the Clinton years, so I downloaded BJ Clinton’s FY 1995 Budget and found some interesting facts.

In his FY 1995 budget, Clinton projected deficits of around $200 billion as far as the eye could see. For example, here are his projected deficits for FY 1995 through FY 2000:

1995: $193 Billion
1996: $197 Billion
1997: $213 Billion
1998: $196 Billion
1999: $197 Billion
2000: $194 billion.

That budget was defeated unanimously by the House of Representatives and was replaced by the Republican budget that reduced the rate of spending by $1 Trillion over 5 years. BJ Clinton fought tooth and nail against that Republican budget and he even shut down the government in an attempt to force the Republican leadership to increase spending. Fortunately for him, BJ Clinton ultimately signed that Republican budget because it helped to produce the “surpluses” in his 2nd term.

BJ Clinton’s FY 1995 Budget also projected that revenues would increase from $1.346 Trillion in FY 1995 to $1.711 Trillion in FY 2000. However, actual revenues increased from $1.352 Trillion in FY 1995 to $2.025 Trillion in FY 2000. Here are the details for both projected (2nd column) and actual (3rd column) revenues:

1995: $1.346T $1.352T
1996: $1.415T $1.453T
1997: $1.472T $1.579T
1998: $1.549T $1.722T
1999: $1.625T $1.828T
2000: $1.711T $2.025T

Looking at those numbers, one can easily see that there were huge increases in revenues starting in 1997. What happened in 1997 that caused those huge increases?

In 1997 the Republican Congress passed a bill reducing the capital gains tax rates and BJ Clinton reluctantly signed it. That capital gains tax rate cut produced a voluminous increase in tax revenues.

So, the Republican FY 1995 budget that reduced the rate of spending growth by $1 Trillion and the Republican capital gains tax rate cuts of 1997 were totally responsible for the “surpluses” in BJ Clinton’s 2nd term. If the Republicans had not attained a majority in the House of Representatives in the 1994 elections, BJ Clinton would have been stuck with deficits of around $200 Billion throughout his entire presidency.

[Rhino]

.......the poor person pays a much higher percentage of his income for sales tax or gas tax or SS than the rich person.Huh? They pay the same percentage as everybody else. That's why it's called a percentage.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Originally we talked about Reagan budgets cuts. Then changed it to decellerations of growth which is NOT the same thing. A cut to a budget is less money, not lowering thew rate at which it grows. At least that is the Republican defn.


If I slam on the brakes, I only avoid hitting you less. I still hit you. My wheels lock up while the rubber sears into the blacktop. Hint: I am still moving. How else would Reagan have kept writing SSI checks to retirees? He was still obligated to the SS fund that's been raided since it started. Its always been about slowing the forward momentum because spending is always in flux.


And the excuses and spin begin...


Actually, its where the conversation begins. Variables. What are the variables and economic factors that account for the items within each budget. You merely want to look at numbers. Clinton deballed the military. He eventually signed into law welfare reform, thanks to the Republican CWA. But does it really matter? Your aren't responding to my points anyway. I already mentioned its the same problem at the state level. The California budget was locked into place via the public employee's union and the fat pensions Davis promised them. What could Arnold do, especially with the legislature? He can't roll them back three years later.


Funny, you did not mention any required CONTEXT when you made your original claim.

So you would rather not flesh out the budgets then? You would rather not look at circumstances or other variables? You just want to look at numbers and call Billy Jeff a fiscal hero when he didn't have Afghanistan, Iraq, 9/11 or a recession. You also don't want to admit that he also presided over one of the most overvalued stock markets in recent history, that consumer confidence was at an all-time high and that it was all led by e-ponzi and tech bullshit, all of which lead to more revenue to pay down the debt.


Now I showed how slow the growth was for each President which showed Clinton slowed the rate of growth of the budget the most, far better than Reagan, Bush HW or Bush W.

You are the one who said that reducing the growth of the budget was the factor to judge upon. So I calculated it and now you start making excuses cause you don't like the answer.

You really should have known the answer before you assumed that Reagan would look good. Now you just look a tad desperate as you make up excuse after excuse for why Reagan, Bush, and Bush all look inferior to Clinton by your measure.

Keep the conversation 2 dimensional, numbers man. Whatever helps you get by.

[dPrasse]

We see that Reagan slowed the growth in spending from the Carter years. Bush HW then slowed the growth in spending from the Reagan years. Then Clinton slowed the growth in spending from thet Bush years. Really, Clinton was the best cutter of them all it appears. Then under Bush W we see explosive growth in spending, higher than any recent President.

Herbert Walker and Clinton pulled alot of their cuts from the Defence budgets , base closings , etc ... not a good plan of thought considering our world is getting more dangerous

[Naturalized-Texan]

Borgia, being a typical liberal, completely ignores the fact that Carter depleted the U.S. military and helped the Soviet Union to attain military superiority over the U.S. Consequently, President Reagan was forced into massive defense spending to rebuild the depleted military and to begin a program to defend us from Soviet missile attacks. That was the MAIN reason for the increased spending while President Reagan was in office.

In addition, there was the additional spending MANDATED by the entitlements established by a long line of Congressional liberals and liberal presidents who preceeded him.

We have much the same situation under President Bush with the addition of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. BJ Clinton depleted the military and failed to fight terrorism, so President Bush not only was forced to rebuild the military, but also was forced to fight the War on Terror. And President Bush inherited the same entitlements, and more, from his predecessors.

[DeclinetoState]

.......the poor person pays a much higher percentage of his income for sales tax or gas tax or SS than the rich person.
Huh? They pay the same percentage as everybody else. That's why it's called a percentage.

I think Borgia's argument is that, because a higher percentage of poor people's income is spent on taxable items, they pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes.

Similarly, airport departure taxes are regressive, since a poor person making a short trip in economy class pays just as much as a rich person traveling first-class halfway around the world (usually 6 or 12 bucks).

Bridge tolls also "tax" limos, econoboxes, Cadillacs, and SUVs the same. Sometimes people who are rich enough to drive hybrids also get a free pass or a cheaper trip, however.

[Borgia]

False! If you would look at either the flat tax proposal or the Fair Tax proposal, you would see that lower income people would pay no taxes at all.

Dude, relax. If you reduce taxes on the wealthy, who is picking up the slack? Or are you admitting that the FAIR tax and the Flat TAx would NOT replace revenues generated by our current system. If it is revenue neutral, who pays for the reduction in taxes on the wealthy?

[Borgia]

Your statement that revenues increased under BJ Clinton jogged my memory about the budgets of the Clinton years, so I downloaded BJ Clinton’s FY 1995 Budget and found some interesting facts.

In his FY 1995 budget, Clinton projected deficits of around $200 billion as far as the eye could see. For example, here are his projected deficits for FY 1995 through FY 2000:

1995: $193 Billion
1996: $197 Billion
1997: $213 Billion
1998: $196 Billion
1999: $197 Billion
2000: $194 billion.

That budget was defeated unanimously by the House of Representatives and was replaced by the Republican budget that reduced the rate of spending by $1 Trillion over 5 years. BJ Clinton fought tooth and nail against that Republican budget and he even shut down the government in an attempt to force the Republican leadership to increase spending. Fortunately for him, BJ Clinton ultimately signed that Republican budget because it helped to produce the “surpluses” in his 2nd term.

NT, how do you account for the falling deficits under Clinton BEFORE the Republicans started being involved in the budgets? Let's take a look and see what those budget deficits were:

1992: -290
1993: -255
1994: -203
1995: -164

Whoah, that is 4 straight years of deficit declines. Clinton and the Democrats must have been doing something right. Please explain how this happened, NT. Have you ever heard of the Budget Reconiliation Act?

[Borgia]

Huh? They pay the same percentage as everybody else. That's why it's called a percentage.

SS tax stops above $93k. The gas tax is not a percentage of income but $/gal.

Sales tax is a percentage but one needs to think about disposable income. If the rich person buys a shirt which has a $1 tax on it and a poor person buys a shirt with a $1 tax on it, who just paid a higher percent of their disposable income for the tax?

DeclinetoState also elaborated my position well.

[Borgia]

If I slam on the brakes, I only avoid hitting you less. I still hit you. My wheels lock up while the rubber sears into the blacktop. Hint: I am still moving. How else would Reagan have kept writing SSI checks to retirees? He was still obligated to the SS fund that's been raided since it started. Its always been about slowing the forward momentum because spending is always in flux.

Cool, glad I showed that the rate of growth of the budget was the least under Clinton. Excellent.



Actually, its where the conversation begins. Variables. What are the variables and economic factors that account for the items within each budget. You merely want to look at numbers. Clinton deballed the military. He eventually signed into law welfare reform, thanks to the Republican CWA. But does it really matter? Your aren't responding to my points anyway. I already mentioned its the same problem at the state level. The California budget was locked into place via the public employee's union and the fat pensions Davis promised them. What could Arnold do, especially with the legislature? He can't roll them back three years later.

How can I respond to your points when you show no evidence for them? I mean, I could just as easily point to invisible aliens hiding behind MArs as the cause of the budget reductions. You offer no analysis, just conjecture on what the causes of everything are. You are just like NT in that regard.

Anyone can say anything. But providing proof is another story. Numbers don't lie. But people trying to explain the cause without ANY analysis whatsoever to bolster their case is rather worthless IMO.


So you would rather not flesh out the budgets then? You would rather not look at circumstances or other variables?
I'd be happy to if you ever start supporting your "cause" theories. Wihtout any analysis, it is merely your opinion.

[sunsettommy]

I do not mind the rich having their tax cut right along with everybody else who pays taxes.It is a proven economic value to the nation.

I do wish the SS ceiling be raised way beyond the current $93,000 level.Why does the people above that ceiling still draw from a retirement system without contributing to it?

Then the most important is......
When will Congress reduce spending such as eliminating outrageous pork and the unecessary subsidies and so on?

Government is too big and spends way too much money.They spend on things they have no business spending it on.

Then since they injected themselves into areas they had no business being in.They created the entitlement problem that will someday blow up in their face.

The creation of programs that always grows and grows is another problem the Feds create.

The mouth of the beast is ever bigger and bigger and after a lot of eating.Who will be left to feed?

[dPrasse]

NT, how do you account for the falling deficits under Clinton BEFORE the Republicans started being involved in the budgets?

Easy , Clinton was a sleaze on the books ... the reductions were reductions on the interest paid ... he "refinanced" the debt with short term "loans/bonds" with much better interest rates , even though he had no intention on paying off the loans .. and more IOU's to the S.S. fund .... just Tom Foolery with the books ...

[Rhino]

I think Borgia's argument is that, because a higher percentage of poor people's income is spent on taxable items, they pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes.And the income not spent by the 'rich' on consumables that are not taxed goes where? It goes to investments that stimulate the economy and create jobs for those poor folks buying gas. That's a far better benefit than the taxes themselves might generate.

Similarly, airport departure taxes are regressive, since a poor person making a short trip in economy class pays just as much as a rich person traveling first-class halfway around the world (usually 6 or 12 bucks).Consumption tax. They're both consuming the same thing, a trip.

Bridge tolls also "tax" limos, econoboxes, Cadillacs, and SUVs the same. Sometimes people who are rich enough to drive hybrids also get a free pass or a cheaper trip, however.Consumption tax. They're both consuming the same thing, a trip across a bridge.

SS tax stops above $93k. The gas tax is not a percentage of income but $/gal.I wasn't speaking of SS, which isn't a consumption tax, and may not even be a flat percentage anyway. But the reason it stops there is because the benefits max out and further contributions cannot produce more benefit.

Sales tax is a percentage but one needs to think about disposable income. If the rich person buys a shirt which has a $1 tax on it and a poor person buys a shirt with a $1 tax on it, who just paid a higher percent of their disposable income for the tax?They both paid the exact same percentage for the exact same consumption. If two middle class guys make the exact same amount of money, and one spends while the other saves, should we punish the guy who saved? This is a straw man argument. You can't be 'fair' by attempting to adjust a consumption tax based on buying habits or income. It's impossible to achieve such 'fairness', and ridiculous to try.

DeclinetoState also elaborated my position well.True, and it still makes no sense whatsoever.

[Borgia]

And the income not spent by the 'rich' on consumables that are not taxed goes where? It goes to investments that stimulate the economy and create jobs for those poor folks buying gas. That's a far better benefit than the taxes themselves might generate.

It is a supposition on your part that the investments will stimulate the economy and create jobs. Why not give the mnoney to the poor who will spend it and thus create a DEMAND which will create jobs? Makes more sense to me. Poor people will spend all their money, thus increasing demand which creates jobs. Rich people will invest but of a $100 investment, not all of it will be used by the company to create jobs. They will also just save it.


I wasn't speaking of SS, which isn't a consumption tax, and may not even be a flat percentage anyway. But the reason it stops there is because the benefits max out and further contributions cannot produce more benefit.
I'm well aware of how SS works. But it is a tax that hits poor people more than rich people due to its ceiling.


They both paid the exact same percentage for the exact same consumption.

No, a first class ticket cost more than a coach ticket and the first class person is provided more service. He does not pay addnl tax for that addnly service. Not the same percentage. What is your denominator when calculating percentage? It should be a dollar amount otherwise you are misapplying the concept and mixing units. Mixing units is a no-no.


If two middle class guys make the exact same amount of money, and one spends while the other saves, should we punish the guy who saved? This is a straw man argument. You can't be 'fair' by attempting to adjust a consumption tax based on buying habits or income. It's impossible to achieve such 'fairness', and ridiculous to try.

I'm not saying it would be possible, I just use an example to point out that certain taxes hit poor people harder than rich people, percentage-wise. Even if the percent for each tax is the same.

I'll amplify for effect.

The RICH person has $100 in income.
The POOR person has $10 in income.

They both buy identical shirts for $5 of which there is a 100% tax of $5.

The RICH person saw 5% of his income go to paying taxes
The POOR person saw 50% of his income go to paying taxes.

See the problem? I offer no solution as the problem is rather intractable. But even a flat tax is unfair IMO.

[Borgia]

Easy , Clinton was a sleaze on the books ... the reductions were reductions on the interest paid ... he "refinanced" the debt with short term "loans/bonds" with much better interest rates , even though he had no intention on paying off the loans .. and more IOU's to the S.S. fund .... just Tom Foolery with the books ...

Considering rates went even lower under Bush here I sure wish Bush had engaged in the same "Tom-foolery" and refinanced some of the loans at lower rates to save the US money.

Are you saying it was unwise to refinance when rates went down? Do you think any other Presidents have refinaced loans at lower rates or was only Clinton foolish enough to have done so?

[Rhino]

It is a supposition on your part that the investments will stimulate the economy and create jobs.Not hardly. It's basic economics.

Why not give the mnoney to the poor who will spend it and thus create a DEMAND which will create jobs? Makes more sense to me.So, remove all incentive for success and enterprise? Sorry. Don't buy it. Communism hasn't worked anywhere else that I've seen, and I fail to see how punishing success ever will.

Poor people will spend all their money, thus increasing demand which creates jobs. Rich people will invest but of a $100 investment, not all of it will be used by the company to create jobs. They will also just save it.Which also stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Where do you think venture capital comes from?

I'm well aware of how SS works. But it is a tax that hits poor people more than rich people due to its ceiling.To my knowledge, they all pay the same until hitting the ceiling. There is no benefit to paying after that. In short, it serves it's purpose.

No, a first class ticket cost more than a coach ticket and the first class person is provided more service. He does not pay addnl tax for that addnly service. Not the same percentage. What is your denominator when calculating percentage? It should be a dollar amount otherwise you are misapplying the concept and mixing units. Mixing units is a no-no.The ticket tax is not a sales tax. It's a use tax for the air transportation system, mostly ATC. It's based on per seat because each seat gets the same service from the system. It makes no difference what seat they're in, which airline they're on, how many discounts they got on the ticket or how expensive the pants are that they wear on the plane. The 'use' that the tax pays for is the same. It was probably a poor example to bring into this discussion, because it's not a percentage based consumption tax like sales taxes are.

I'm not saying it would be possible, I just use an example to point out that certain taxes hit poor people harder than rich people, percentage-wise. Even if the percent for each tax is the same.

I'll amplify for effect.

The RICH person has $100 in income.
The POOR person has $10 in income.

They both buy identical shirts for $5 of which there is a 100% tax of $5.

The RICH person saw 5% of his income go to paying taxes
The POOR person saw 50% of his income go to paying taxes.The rich person buys four shirts and an SUV, and ends up paying far more. You're right. It's not fair. The poor guy should pay more. We could play this game forever. The incomes of affluent people do not go into some black hole, never to benefit society again. They spend more, so they pay more sales taxes. What they don't spend gets invested somewhere where it also provides benefit to society, assuming they don't put it under the mattress.

See the problem? I offer no solution as the problem is rather intractable. But even a flat tax is unfair IMO.There's your problem. A sales tax is not income based. It's consumption based. Yet you keep trying to inject income into it. Are you saying that sales taxes should be graduated according to income?

[Rhino]

The RICH person has $100 in income.I'm RICH !!!! :grin:

[Borgia]

Not hardly. It's basic economics.

All right, let's test that theory. Let's abolish ALL taxes on the rich and on corporations so that they can create the maximum amount of jobs. If lowering taxes ALWAYS creates more jobs which offsets teh loss in tax revenue, then this would be the optimal solution, right Rhino? Please provide your opinion on a 0% corporate tax and a 0% income tax on the wealthy.



So, remove all incentive for success and enterprise? Sorry. Don't buy it. Communism hasn't worked anywhere else that I've seen, and I fail to see how punishing success ever will.

Who said anything about this? All I said is give more tax cuts to the poor so they have more in their pocket to spend and thus DEMAND increases. The rich will make more money by meeting the increased demand. Everyone happy. I am not talking about taking ALL money from the rich so your communism bugaboo is invalid.


Which also stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Where do you think venture capital comes from?

Clearly not 100% of savings is used to create jobs.


To my knowledge, they all pay the same [SS] until hitting the ceiling. There is no benefit to paying after that. In short, it serves it's purpose.

I don't knos the exact percent but let's say it is 15%. I earn $10k per year so I pay 15% of my income to SS. You earn $500k per year. You pay (93k x 0.15) / 500k = 3% of your income to SS.

Clearly teh tax hits one person more than the other. Sure, teh benefit is capped but we are talking about poor and rich being hit equally by taxes and clearly they are not.


The ticket tax is not a sales tax. It's a use tax for the air transportation system, mostly ATC. It's based on per seat because each seat gets the same service from the system. It makes no difference w