Talking Points Memo: Taxes - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 05-13-2003, 09:10 AM

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo May 13, 2003

Quote:

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. Do you believe President Bush? That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

The President is running around the country banging the tax cut drum, but the Democrats and some Independents are not dancing to the beat. The old mantra that Mr. Bush wants tax cuts for the rich is still being circulated by many who believe that the wealthy should carry those Americans who cannot or will not earn much money.

And that is what it comes down to, ladies and gentlemen: income redistribution. Do you believe that Americans who make more than $53,000 a year should give some of their earnings to other Americans who make less than $30,000? Those of us over the 53K threshold pay an astounding 83 percent of the federal income tax right now.

And the Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, want that percentage to rise. In fact, the feds now send $30 billion a year in refunds to people who pay absolutely no federal income tax at all. This is free money for those who don't earn much.

So, the system takes from those who have and gives to those who do not have. It is the Robin Hood tax system. Do you want that? We have opened a poll on billoreilly.com to hear your voice, so let us know.

The Bush tax cut would give money back to all Americans, most of the whom will wind up giving it right back to the government because local taxes are going up. Here in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg is taxing everything that moves. But the good mayor is not asking his labor force of -- are you ready -- 255,000 to work more hours. Currently, workers in New York City put in a taxing 35 hours a week, not counting lunch and breaks.

Because President Bush wants to give a break to all American taxpayers, he's being demonized as a shill for people like me who earn good money.

But what's really going on here is simple. Should the government continue to spend without accountability, as New York City has, or should it deal with fewer funds? Bush wants fiscal discipline imposed by tax cuts, and I agree.

For example, California is so mismanaged by an incompetent governor and a piecey legislature, that the state is out of control and will remain so. And where does [California Governor] Gray Davis look for financial help? Right to the federal government.

Massachusetts spent $10 billion more than Ted Kennedy promised on a road project. Nobody in Washington batted an eyelash. That's because affluent Americans can always be ordered to pay more and more and more, even though everybody knows the tax system is corrupt.

Americans must decide what kind of country we want to live in--a country that stresses self-reliance--or Sweden. Vote on billoreilly.com.

And that's The Memo.

______

I give up plenty of money in taxes each and every year. In fact I have my accountant do my taxes with the regular 1040 and also the Alternative Minimum Tax to make sure that I'm square with the Feds. It took me long hard hours to get to this point, and I'm not happy if am asked to give more of it away to entitlements and other social programs.

Each year I think I'm getting closer and closer to financially achieviement. And each year, everything seems to just skyrocket just out of reach. I don't want to buy a 1 bedroom place in Manhattan, but at 2 bedroom is almost US$100,000 more.

A number of years ago, Perot and some others talked about a flat rate tax across the board. What happened to that? Was it just puffering and sales talk? Would you be affected by this change and how do you think you would be affected by it in the future (meaning you may be in college now, but at some point in time you expect to make over that US$53k mark)

Mr. Mojo · 05-13-2003, 09:14 AM

All i know is no nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

maximusveritas · 05-13-2003, 09:56 AM

C'mon, that's just O'Reilly doing some more of his patented spinning. Its an absolute joke.

Bush wants to give money to all Americans, huh? So why is it that the Republicans voted down a Democrat proposal, whose only difference was a reduction in the cut for the top 1%. Bush's tax cut would give over $400 billion dollars, or 44% of the total tax cut, to that 1%. So does Bush really care about all Americans, or just that 1%.

Why does O'Reilly give the $53K mark? To make more people feel like they are paying their unfair share. What he doesn't mention is that people who make about $90K pay about 60% So if you make between 53K and 90K, you're only paying about 20%, which is just a little more than the 25K to 53K bracket pays.

Don't get me started on the flat tax or national sales tax.
By the way, this thread would probably be better in the politics forum.

05-13-2003, 09:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
Mr. Mojo Addict Location: NYC	All i know is no nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity. __________________ When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

05-13-2003, 09:56 AM	#3 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	C'mon, that's just O'Reilly doing some more of his patented spinning. Its an absolute joke. Bush wants to give money to all Americans, huh? So why is it that the Republicans voted down a Democrat proposal, whose only difference was a reduction in the cut for the top 1%. Bush's tax cut would give over $400 billion dollars, or 44% of the total tax cut, to that 1%. So does Bush really care about all Americans, or just that 1%. Why does O'Reilly give the $53K mark? To make more people feel like they are paying their unfair share. What he doesn't mention is that people who make about $90K pay about 60% So if you make between 53K and 90K, you're only paying about 20%, which is just a little more than the 25K to 53K bracket pays. Don't get me started on the flat tax or national sales tax. By the way, this thread would probably be better in the politics forum.