Our Wacky President!

[renata]

Not photo op presidency my &^%



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/28/bush.taxes.ap/index.html

Bolding mine

Bush is to turn a 10-year, $350 billion package of tax rebates, lower rates, new breaks for businesses and investors and aid to states into law Wednesday at a ceremony in the White House's East Room.

The full-fanfare event for the third-largest tax cut in the nation's history comes a day after Bush -- with no comment or ceremony -- signed a bill allowing the federal government to borrow as much as $7.4 trillion.

The $984 billion increase in the federal debt limit is the largest on record, and will go in part to help pay for the new tax cuts that the GOP-run Congress passed on close votes at Bush's behest.
....

After running annual surpluses during the last four years of the Clinton administration, huge federal deficits have returned with no end in sight. This year's is expected to exceed $300 billion -- a record in dollars, albeit not as a percentage of the national economy.
....



As Bush traveled widely to sell his package, he portrayed the ailing economy as something he inherited, taking care to mention that the recession took place in 2001's first three quarters -- the beginning of his presidency. That period of negative growth was then exacerbated by that fall's terrorist attacks and corporate corruption scandals, he often said.

The intent was to place the problems' creation outside the president's control, while positioning him to gain credit for trying to fix them.

But after a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, a $96 billion stimulus last fall and the new $350 billion package, it is widely agreed that Bush now has ownership of the economy for better or for worse.

...

[c0rbin]

Ahh...politics.

Who knows. Maybe the people who don't vote in this country will start voting.

[Skeptical Greg]

And how much of your money are you going to get returned to you?

Are you going to send it back?

Or did you pay any federal taxes last year?

I can't wait for the people who didn't pay any taxes, or received that wellfare check called " the earned income tax credit ", to start screaming, that they are not getting a ' refund ' ...:rolleyes:

[renata]

Originally posted by Diogenes
And how much of [i]your[i] money are you going to get returned to you?

Are you going to send it back?

Or did you pay any federal taxes last year?


I pay my taxes in rubles. So far I paid 1.67 billion.

The point was not that the tax cut may be ill advised- which it may be. The point is the strange juxtaposition of the two events. Politics as usual.

[Skeptical Greg]

I believe it is customary for the President to have pictures taken when he signs legislation.. What exactly is your problem with this?

P.S..


You did say Our wacky president..???:confused:

[renata]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I believe it is customary for the President to have pictures taken when he signs legislation.. What exactly is your problem with this?


*sigh*

Because he is making a big hoopla about this bill, and yesterday quietly, surreptisiouly signed the bill that made this one possible- but shows the downside of this one.


Also, Bush campaigned maligning photo-op presidency of Clinton, while he engages in identical behavior.

[renata]

Originally posted by Diogenes



You did say Our wacky president..???:confused:


It was a joke...
Yes, I pay my taxes like all law abiding citizens every other year. That was a joke also.

[Dancing David]

Diogenes_
I thought that a lot of people who got the earned income tax credit didn't get extra money just lower taxes.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by renata



It was a joke...
Yes, I pay my taxes like all law abiding citizens every other year. That was a joke also.

What about the refund? Gonna' keep it?:)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Diogenes_
I thought that a lot of people who got the earned income tax credit didn't get extra money just lower taxes.


Lower taxes... extra money.... Hmmmm..

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Our President is putting more money in my pocket RIGHT NOW! Woo Hoo!!!!

I'm gonna buy a hooker!

[renata]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Our President is putting more money in my pocket RIGHT NOW! Woo Hoo!!!!

I'm gonna buy a hooker!


That is right, my man- spend that money, ecomony needs it! :)

[Tmy]

I'm pissed. I dont have any kids so I wont be seeing any checks. Where are all the "fair share in taxes" people? Dont parents get enough tax breaks. Their lousy kids are a big public tax burden and the keep getting reward.

I should get a refund for not having any kids.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Tmy
I'm pissed. I dont have any kids so I wont be seeing any checks. Where are all the "fair share in taxes" people? Dont parents get enough tax breaks. Their lousy kids are a big public tax burden and the keep getting reward.

I should get a refund for not having any kids.

You have to have kids to get the cut? :mad:

Oh well, did the dividend cut make it? That would be a good thing!

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Ahh...politics.

Who knows. Maybe the people who don't vote in this country will start voting. And then we'll have Jesse Ventura as President? :eek:

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Tmy
I'm pissed. I dont have any kids so I wont be seeing any checks. Where are all the "fair share in taxes" people? Dont parents get enough tax breaks. Their lousy kids are a big public tax burden and the keep getting reward.

I should get a refund for not having any kids. Amen! Stop paying irresponsible middle class parents for having more damned kids! If they can't afford them, they shouldn't have them.

[Mercutio]

A refund for not having kids? Why? W borrowed the money from them in the first place.

I gotta look for it, but there was a great editorial that argued that childless people should sign off on their social security, since they don't have kids that will be paying for it when the time comes.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Diogenes
And how much of your money are you going to get returned to you?

Are you going to send it back?

Or did you pay any federal taxes last year?

I can't wait for the people who didn't pay any taxes, or received that wellfare check called " the earned income tax credit ", to start screaming, that they are not getting a ' refund ' ...:rolleyes:

You mean I won't get a check ???? I already blew my EIC refund, in fact I blew it within 24 hours.

[Crossbow]

Cutting taxes often does help to stimulate an economy, at least in the short term.

However, right now the USA has to deal with:

Economic slow down,
War on Terrorism,
Building of a Missile Defense System,
Vast costs of improving internal security,
Many state economies doing poorly,
Re-building of Iraq, and
Possible war with one, or more of the follwing: Iran, Syria, North Korea.

Not to mention the other long-term problems and on going troubles such as pollution, energy development, education, health care, and the occasional natural disasters.

However, we now have a mult-billion, perhaps multi-trillion dollar tax cut to sing and dance about.

So it will be a return to Regan's day when the tax cuts occurred and the Federal Deficit exploded for years to come, and just when it was starting to get under control ... Violia! Another tax cut!

The Regan-Bush deficits will make this one look like a hungry puppy in comparison.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by tamiO


You mean I won't get a check ???? I already blew my EIC refund, in fact I blew it within 24 hours.

I understand they don't amount to much.. But the math that gets a remainder when you divide by '0' deserves some discussion in the Science Forum...:)

[specious_reasons]

Diogenes,

I'm not overtly interested in hijacking this thread, but your statement really bemused me.....

You don't like Earned Income Tax Credits?

I thought that it was one program where most people from all politcal spectrums liked.

[Tmy]

I bet the tax refunds come with a "Bush in 2004" sticker.

If you wanna give money back, give it to the working poor. You know theyll go spend it on all sorts of cool stuff!



as for a Missle defense system??? Hello, anyone ever place Atari "Missle Command".. that proved that a missle sheild just wont work.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Mercutio
A refund for not having kids? Why? W borrowed the money from them in the first place.

I gotta look for it, but there was a great editorial that argued that childless people should sign off on their social security, since they don't have kids that will be paying for it when the time comes. I will gladly sign off on SS if I don't have to pay taxes to support all those kids that middle class parents refuse to support and educate on their own. I'll have much more money that way to put away for retirement. Great plan!

[renata]

Here is a link to figure out how this tax cut benefits you. I have no kids, and I am not married, and I am not extra rich, so the benefit to me is realtively minimal.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/22/pf/taxes/q_taxbill/index.htm

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Diogenes,

I'm not overtly interested in hijacking this thread, but your statement really bemused me.....

You don't like Earned Income Tax Credits?

I thought that it was one program where most people from all politcal spectrums liked.

I'm sure I would like it if I qualified for it... Turbo Tax always skips over it, so I must admit I don't understand exactly how it works.

Seems like I saw something that said:
" you may be entitled to a refund, even though you didn't pay any taxes... "

I'm sure our government servants write those checks from their own accounts..

[Victor Danilchenko]

Diogenes

Seems like I saw something that said:
" you may be entitled to a refund, even though you didn't pay any taxes... "

I'm sure our government servants write those checks from their own accounts.EIC is a form of Negative Income Tax -- the only model of tax/transfer that the libertarian economist Milton Friedman endorsed (he in fact endorsed it quite stridently).

NIT is based on recognition that tax/transfer is unavoidable and in fact desirable for the well-being of society; and on the beliefs that the government shouldn't provide the services itself due to inefficiency, and that the extant welfare systema are extravagantly wasteful, unwieldy, and don't do what they are supposed to do anyway.

if you want to know more, look up "negative income tax" on the web.

[Lurker]

Why is there a group of politicians that seem to follow this logic:

Budget Surplus -> "We need to lower taxes"
Budget Deficit -> "We need to cut taxes"

When are we obligated to raise taxes? According to some politicians, it seems never.

Interesting data I found showed that the optimal tax rate for the country to maximize revenues was above what we currently pay. I will have to dig that study up again.

Lurker

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Lurker


When are we obligated to raise taxes? According to some politicians, it seems never.


Lurker

You got to be kidding?

It happens almost daily.. ( taxes being raised )

I'm waiting to start paying taxes on my taxes....

[Lurker]

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/s159apa.html

“For specific taxes, governments collect the highest amount of revenue when tax rates equal 22.5 percent for the income tax, 12.5 percent for the sales tax and 13.2 percent for taxes on international trade.”

Currently, the US average income tax is 18%, far below the 22.5% which would maximize revenue. So, when Bush's tax cuts go into effect, we should expect less revenue from that.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Diogenes


You got to be kidding?

It happens almost daily.. ( taxes being raised )

I'm waiting to start paying taxes on my taxes....

No, my point was that there are certain politicians who feel that no matter what the question is, the answer is to lower taxes. Don't you find that strange that lowering taxes is a panacea for two diametrically opposed situations? If someone said they were selling snake oil that could make you lose or gain weight depending on your condition I bet your skepticism meter would be hitting overload. Yet you happily accept it from politicians.

Lurker

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Lurker
[url]
Currently, the US average income tax is 18%, far below the 22.5% which would maximize revenue. So, when Bush's tax cuts go into effect, we should expect less revenue from that.

Lurker

What's the average for people who actually pay taxes?

I have a feeling that this 18% average includes some people who don't..

I understand a flat 10% (everybody pays ) would have Uncle Sam rolling in dough..

Maybe Victor could add an informed spin to this..

[Dancing David]

I think that if we had a flat tax then 5% would be enough, those great machines of capitalism (ie corporations) frequently do not pay taxes.
FLAT TAX, NO EXCEPTIONS.

A friend and I agreed that the only fair way to do it would be to tax all income, so no more 501-c exemption, no more church exemption, no more deductions and loop holes.

I am all for it.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Diogenes


What's the average for people who actually pay taxes?

I have a feeling that this 18% average includes some people who don't..

I understand a flat 10% (everybody pays ) would have Uncle Sam rolling in dough..

Maybe Victor could add an informed spin to this..

Yes, your opinion, while interesting is just that. Please feel free to provide a source for the idea that a flat 10% flat tax would increase revenue.

thanks!

Lurker

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Lurker


Yes, your opinion, while interesting is just that. Please feel free to provide a source for the idea that a flat 10% flat tax would increase revenue.

thanks!

Lurker

I don't have one..

Dont' feel like looking for one.

As I said, I have heard that tossed about..



If you don't buy it, I'll defer to your informed opinion..

I'm not happy with the amount of taxes I pay, but I really don't have any reason to believe I will have reason to rejoice any time soon. I see the tax cut as a grudging return of a small part of what is rightfully mine.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Diogenes

I'm sure I would like it if I qualified for it... Turbo Tax always skips over it, so I must admit I don't understand exactly how it works.

Seems like I saw something that said:
" you may be entitled to a refund, even though you didn't pay any taxes... "

I'm sure our government servants write those checks from their own accounts..

Victor wrote something much more informative than I would have, so I won't add much.

I view it as a social assistance to the working poor as a reward for actually working. Worlds better than just handing someone a check.

[AlH]

Originally posted by Diogenes

I'm waiting to start paying taxes on my taxes....

Here in Iowa, legislatures are voting tomorrow on whether or not to be able to deduct federal taxes off of state income tax. By requiring residents to pay state income tax on federal taxes they can increase the state income 15% to 20%. I am not sure if they plan on dropping Iowa's tax rate (about 8-9%) in addition or (more likely) they plan on doing this to make up the budget shortfalls.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Lurker


Yes, your opinion, while interesting is just that. Please feel free to provide a source for the idea that a flat 10% flat tax would increase revenue.

thanks!

Lurker

Jerry Brown ran on a 13% flat, no exceptions tax. His predictions, for what it's worth, was that the US Govt. would generate more revenue from this scheme.

The important thing, though, is what counts as income.... Dick Armey proposed a flat tax sometime in the 90s (maybe earlier). The important disctinction was that his flat tax was strictly on wages and compensation. The capital gains rate was 0%. That would have reduced revenue drastically. Of course, that's what he wanted.

[Malachi151]

Hey, if you can sell a tax plan that gives the biggest cuts to the wealthy and the least to the middle class, then you can sell anything.

The probelm that his people are either too stupid to realize, to just don't care about

Is that Keyansian economics solves many of the problems of capitalism while creating eventual stagflation.

Supply-Side resolves the problem of stagflation but is also causes the problems that Keyansian economics resolved. So, pulling the same trick that Reagan pulled again is not goign to work, it sjust digging a deeper hole. The solution in terms of capitalism is a return to the Keyansian era of the 1950s and 1960s until stagflation sets in again, and then to switch back to Supply-Side again, and then you back and fourth like that.

This isn't going to work though, and I'm willing to bet money on that. In 10 years weren't looing at major problems if this type of policy is followed out for that long.

They wil eventially have to return to high marginal rates or we will be turning into a 3rd world country soon.

Here is my tax plan:

My plan

$0-$30,000 - 10%
$30,000-$60,000 - 15%
$60,000-$100,000 - 20%
$100,000-$170,000 - 25%
$170,000-$300,000 - 30%
$300,000-$500,000 - 35%
$500,000-$1,000,000 - 40%
$1,000,000-$1,500,000 - 45%
$1,500,000-$2,000,000 - 46%
$2,000,000-$2,500,000 - 47%
$2,500,000-$3,000,000 - 48%
$3,000,000-$4,000,000 - 49%
$4,000,000 and over - 50%

Current Plan

$0-$27,050 - 15%
$27,050-$65,550 - 28%
$65,550-$136,750 - 31%
$136,750-$297,350 - 36%
$297,350 and over - 39%

Bush plan

$0-$6,000 - 10%
$6,000-$27,050 - 15%
$65,550-$136,750 - 31%
$136,750 and over - 33%

The way that capital gains would be taxed is that anyone who’s combined earned income and capital gains income is under $300,000 a year would have their capital gains taxed at the rate equal to their earned income and capital gains combined. Anyone who's combined capital gains and earned income is over $300,000 a year would simply have their capital gains taxed as 30%. The current capital gains tax is 28%.

By taxing dividends in the manner that I have proposed low income earners would not be penalized for capital gains income in the way that they are now, making capital investment more attractive to lower income individuals, as well as lower tax rates which would free up more capital for investing, purchasing, and saving.

This type of taxation would promote a healthier economy by placing a more fair tax burden on those receiving extremely high income, opposed to the current plan and Bush's plan that sets a low top margin which effectively create a flat tax for the wealthy. At the same time a plan like I proposed would create a tax cut for everyone making under $500,000 a year.

[Skeptical Greg]

Malachi151says:
Hey, if you can sell a tax plan that gives the biggest cuts to the wealthy and the least to the middle class, then you can sell anything.

They get the biggest cuts because they make the most.. Why do you think they deserve to be punished more than the middle class?

So you believe letting people keep more of what they earn is giving them a break?

What office are you running for?

Where do you think the money that working people earn, comes from?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Malachi151says:


They get the biggest cuts because they make the most.. Why do you think they deserve to be punished more than the middle class?

So you believe letting people keep more of what they earn is giving them a break?

What office are you running for?

Where do you think the money that working people earn, comes from?

Okay, I'll rephrase that, the biggest TAX RATE cuts.

And my ideas on economics are too much to get into in this thread, if you want to read them, they are in the link in my sig mixed throught the paper.

Here is some data:

http://pw1.netcom.com/~rdavis2/bushplan.html

A large percentage cut is given at the super low end, under $6,000 a year, but we all know thats well below poverty and really doesn't not represent poor people it represents part time workers and students. Anyone living on under $6,000 a year would be on assistance anyway. At any rate, the relatively large cut for that group $0- $6,000 only saves those pople at most $300, and as I said, that was done basically just as show so that Bush could claim to be giving abig tax break to the poor.

Anyway, you can see the numbers for yourself, and here is a graph going through $1,000,000.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w10.jpg

Keep in mind that is a graph of percent of the reduction. Its not that the wealthy get more money back, its that they get a larger reduction in taxes.

Here is Bush's deceptive graph from his webwite:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w9.gif

This is actual dollars saved through 2 million a year salary. Keep in mind for all of this that we have people making over $30 million a year in this country, thouhg I don't know if that is classified as earned income though.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w11.gif

[Whoracle]

"I gotta look for it, but there was a great editorial that argued that childless people should sign off on their social security, since they don't have kids that will be paying for it when the time comes."


They already paid for their social security for 40-50 years. That's the whole point, you pay now, you get the money later.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I don't have one..

Dont' feel like looking for one.

As I said, I have heard that tossed about..

If you don't buy it, I'll defer to your informed opinion..

I'm not happy with the amount of taxes I pay, but I really don't have any reason to believe I will have reason to rejoice any time soon. I see the tax cut as a grudging return of a small part of what is rightfully mine.

Fair enough. I am not necessarily saying I am right, just seeking more info.

Lurker