Do I need to recap? there is no fence leaning here. I think the loopholes are needed the way things are set up now. If you want to get rid of them then make a flat tax of 10-20% that would eliminate all "loopholes". The tax cuts for the rich will help the economy and with time the middle class too. the tax cuts are also for the middle class, but not as much because they pay less to begin with. Kerry's plan will not work the way it sits because the rich will not pay his new taxes he proposes cause they are too smart. All he is doing is appealing to the middle class to get their votes knowing he himself can get out of paying them. Government spending is too high, but that happens in a time of war. Revamping the welfare and social security programs is more in line with the spending that I am thinking about. Please I would like to see where i am balancing on the fence? just because I support some things the pres. does, does not mean I agree with everything. my original point in this thread was that you people disagree with him everytime whether or not the message he says is good or bad. you are blinded by your hatred which causes you to make biased judgments.

I cut and pasted it, since you obviously did not read it I will say it again. As a small business owner I make 100,000 for the year. but I have expenses for running that business. they come out to 50,000. therefore I have made a profit that year of 50,000 for which I should be taxed. the same 100,000 made as a salary does bnot have operating costs and should be taxed on the whole amount. now that is en example of a "loophole" as you call it. it is needed and must stay in place or you put all small business under.



Look at it this way, if a corporation needs help from the governement in terms of less taxes so they can build another factory that will employ thousands of people, which the government would then make the money back by taxing the company on payroll and the employees income, then it makes sence to me to do it.

Neither of those are the types of loopholes that I am referring to, and you know it. There is a huge difference between a tax incentive and a tax loophole. An incentive is like what you said--a state, or county, or city providing a tax break to a factory that will provide jobs and boost the economy. I dont have a problem with that. It is better for the economy, and in the long run, brings in more money than is lost.

What I do have a problem with is, say, saying that hog farmers now have to pay lower taxes than, say, beef ranchers. *That* is a tax loophole put into place through special interest groups. Or getting out of paying taxes on profits made by foreign workers by claiming they were "foreign profits."

Furthermore, reporting your $50,000 profit isnt a tax loophole--its simple economics. Your profit was $50,000, the guy with a $100,000 salary had $100,000 in profit. Both should be, and are taxed accordingly.

Look, you have been asked to stop making personal attacks a couple times already. It is cause for being banned--it says this clearly in the rules at the top of the forum.

You seem to think you know an auful lot about people who hate Bush, but look at it this way the same can be said people like you who support Bush will do so through thick and thin, Iraq i proving that.

Now was that really called for? I mean jesus you know nothing about the person and the only thing you know is what you think is right, maybe hopping down off that high horse you are up on might help you to make your point without being a dick.

Yeah yeah being a dick is more fun. :)

SETTLE DOWN BEAVIS!!!!

we're all supposed to be civil....no need for name calling and hair pulling.

Tell ya what, I need to do more research on corporate taxes and incentives before I comment on them. So I have to stick with personal and small business. And I was referring to someone telling me that it was wrong that I was able to write off most of my earnings and not paying taxes on them. maybe the word loophole was not used then, but I know what his point was. But as for the hog farmers getting tax breaks the beef farmers do not get, I have to say how long has that been going on? I mean is all corporate incentives a product of republicans?

I do know that the top 10% erners and corporations pay 80% of the taxes, so I have to say the middle class is getting a pretty fair shake.

Another question I have is why the liberals are trying to create division by getting the poor mad at the rich. They play to peoples emotions to get votes but more often then not they are not the "people's kinda man" that they make themselves out to be.

I don't want to bring Iraq into this, but yes there are somethings I wish would have been handled differently. Like I said before, not everything Bush has done I think is great, its just overall I think he has done a good job with what has been put infront of him.

if it doesn't stop i'm gonna break out the gag balls

I know you said this awhile ago bu tI missed it. As for "giving" the rich more money, well we both know thats not what happens, they just get to KEEP their money, which I think they deserve. If the rich don't buy expensive yahts, you won't have the middle class being paid to make them. it just they way things work.

I knew this would get thrown out there eventually. It's the classic Rush approach, throw a number out with no context and talk about how the middle class and poor are getting some free ride from the rich. The truth is much different than what Rush tells you.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Looking at 2001 numbers only, you see this (I know it's hard to read but I can't get the columns to line up):

class, tax share income share adj gross income
top 1%, 33.89% 17.53% 293k
top 5%, 53.25% 31.99% 128k
top 10%, 64.89% 43.11% 93k
top 25%, 82.90% 65.23% 56k
top 50%, 96.03% 86.19% 28.5k

Those numbers are high because each class includes now look what it's like if you remove the tier above:
group tax share income share income range
0%-1% 33.89% 17.53% 293k < income < infinity

1%-5% 19.36% 14.46% 128k < income < 293k

5%-10% 11.12% 11.64% 93k < income < 128k

10%-25% 18.01% 22.12% 56k < income < 128k

25%-50% 13.13% 20.96% 28.5k < income < 56k

Things get even really fast. Two groups pay more than their proportional share of the tax burden, the ones making more than 99% of all Americans and the ones in the 95-99 percentiles. The people in the 95-99 aren't even paying that much more, compared to their income, and since their is such a large gap between the bottom and top of those groups, most of the disproportionality comes from those closer to the top 1%. Once you fall to the 5-10 percentile, you are already paying a tax rate that is nearly perfectly proportional to your income.

Looking at it this way, how is our current system THAT unfair? The only ones getting huge breaks are those making less than 28.5k per year. Should we really risk economic havoc so that people making over 300k can have it easier?

Give me some time to get back to you on this point, because I do want to , I just don't have time right now. tonight I will be back, but what I read does make good sence initially......but.....

The problem is the people that get the benefits are so small in number, the economic effect is miniscule. OK, so the people making over $300,000 get an extra $10,000 after taxes and decide to go put that down on a car--thats a *very* small number of cars, and certainly not enough to generate an upswing in the economy.

Let's assume it's true that the top 10% pay 80% of the taxes. Assuming the top 10% are in the top marginal tax bracket, they pay 35-40% in taxes. If you instituted a flat tax at even 20% across the board, you lose 40% of your tax income right there. With the flat tax the federal government has basically half as much to work with -- that's a lot of "wasteful" spending to get rid of.

I'm disheartened by your generalizing of all non-college graduates as being "dumb" and "lazy," but encouraged by your wife's story. You are in favor of universal, paid-for college to those who can't afford it, then? Sort of like an educational welfare, yes?

This may be the socialist in me but if you look at the model of our wages, it is a pyramid with a small group on top making the largest amount of money. Those are the people that employ almost everyone else. They set the wages and keep them as low as competition allows so that they can hoard their money. Keeping that in mind, I don't see how it is so wrong that the tax model can't be the same.

Well, this thread has certainly engendered quite a bit of discussion.

I'm pleased.

Mr Mephisto

Bush is right... when you tax the rich, it's the poor who end up paying. On the other hand, if you stop confiscating their money, the rich will create new businesses, new jobs, and improve the life of everyone.

This rabid, frothing insistence that we punish wealthy people for being successful is the misguided result of bitter jealousy from people who have given up on ever wanting to make something of themselves, and have decided to punish those who have.

Just as the rabid, frothing insistence that supply side economics actually work is the result of either insecure rich folks who somehow think they should get even more money or confused middle class folks who like to think that they will one day be rich.

Yes, yes it has! :)

Hahaha.... Best. Comeback. Ever.

That's what I'm talking about... the bitter jealousy summed up nicely. The Democratic party is the party of folks who have given up. In the land of opportunity where anyone can make something of themselves if they're willing to take some risks and work hard, the Democrats of today would rather sit around and moan about how they'll never amount to anything. Of course, instead of blaming themselves for their own lack of ambition, they'd rather hate successful people.

America is littered with countless stories of folks who grew up in working class families and became millionaires. You won't find as many tales of success in any other nation in the world.

Your attitude of hopelessness is as unfounded as your belief that supply side economics don't work.

We have a winner here folks. He wants us to stop spending so much, but fails utterly to tell us what we can stop spending money on. Isn't that convenient.

Look, you've spent 3 pages spouting generalized bullshit. How about nailing SOMETHING down for a change? Yes, I know that if you nail something down, you will lose the argument because we will be able to come up with hard facts to refute your false assertions, but at least show some cajones and be willing to back up your vague assertions, eh?

To those that deserve it by working hard and not taking advantage yes.

They do that too keep competative cause I don't think that the majority of the people are going to spend more money at the grocer cause they pay the employees better. Now of course it would be nice to see the walton's spead out some of the 5 billion that they made in profit last year, but I don't think it is the governments job to do so.

ditto

Well I did not know it was up to me to change the counrty. But since you asked, I think for starters we could fix the welfare program. Also turn the social security program privitized, also getting our education system changed. like vouchers for example. Stop spending government money to find out the differences between men and women, or something stupid like that. The war is a big money drain at this point, but its not something we can just jump out of. Become more depended on our natural resorces like drilling anwar. There are many ways to slow spending, not all of it but some areas are a waste.

The idea is that better pay leads to happier, more productive workers. A bummed out staff of stockers, moppers and cashiers can lead to a bummed out customer, and being bummed out isn't something that people gravitate towards.

Think of the shit teenager you've asked a question in any job they're working and all you got was a bad attitude, and you'll know what I mean.

OK lets name some programs that the Feds do not and should not spend their money on, i nominate education since it is the responsability of the state and no the feds it has no place in the budget i am sure that many liberals would agree since they have nothing but negatives to say about no child left behind

More generalizations. HOW will you fix it. Just saying "fix it!" isn't gonna save any money.

Got a plan for that? Got safeguards for that so that when some dumbfuck invests in the wrong stock and loses everyone's retirement we won't wind up with a bunch of homeless senior citizens?

Please explain to me how giving people money to send their children to private school will help save money.

Finally something we agree on. Something you may not know, however, is that the last president to take a bigassed knife to the pork barrel bullshit the government likes to spend money on was Clinton.

Or maybe try developing alternative energies that work? (solar, wind, water, etc)




But as you said the war is a huge drain. We have to pay for it somehow. That means we can't be irresponsible and reduce taxes while our spending is so high.

As to the 10% paying the 80, well yes technically I was wrong there, my idea was right but number were not. one thing that I did notice is that the bottom 50% only pay like 5%. Here is something I found that seemed interesting. check it out.



http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1253es.cfm

I have worked in construction before and there are a lot of mexicans getting minimum wage and most of those guys are happy and enjoy what they do. Its a matter of peoples perceptions on whether they are happy with their jobs. I have seen lots of people who make 50K+ who are bummed out of their minds cause they sit insdie all the time.

http://mutualfunds.about.com/cs/1929...ck_tuesday.htm
And for the end of your bits.
The response is...
http://www.worldrevolution.org/Proje...Inequality.htm
So the top 1% pay 30% of the income tax burden, but own 40% of the wealth in the nation? Compare and contrast at will from there.

Edit: I'd also like to pose a question that just occured to me: If the bottom 50% of income earners pay only 5% of income taxes... well, leaving them income-tax-free wouldn't hurt much at all, would it?

Yeah its called a anuity, its guaranteed to make more then SS is and you cannot loose your money and it can be tax free too.

Privite schools waste less money.


So this means you disagree with Kerry's plan for a tax break then?

I already stated that. In typical Rushism fashion you only throw out how much tax that they pay. 5% from half the country sounds terrible but when you add the perspective that they only make 14% of the money it's a different story.

You're trapping yourself. Private schools "waste" less money by paying their teachers much less than their public school counterpoints. Now, if you're supporting low wages, then surely there must be a flaw in your idea that more money in americans' pockets means more revenue for the government. Of course you, like the rest of the trickledown crowd, are only interested in enriching the already rich.

Why would i disagree with a plan that eliminates tax breaks for companies that move their jobs outside the united states while providing incentives to keep the jobs here? I certainly don't see Bush taking much interest in doing that, despite all his big talk about creating jobs.

SO, physix, no answer on the fact that a flat tax for 10% would cut the tax income of the government by more than half?

A big reason private schools "waste" less money is they don't have to cater to the lowest common denominator and they don't have to teach kids with special needs like retardation, autism, etc. Those conditions are a HUGE drain on a school's resources.

Kerry's plan for a tax break is a break for the 98% who own less than 60% of the nation's wealth. He wants to tax the rich e.g., himself and his wife and his running mate, unlike Bush, who wants a cut for himself and his cabinet of millionaires.

Finally, Hwed, it's not hopelessness, it's realism. There's a reason less than 1% of the country is "high-net-worth" individuals.

OK, just something I have to add here. First, its ANWR. Not ANWAR. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Second, its a fucking wildlife refuge, not an oil drilling ground. Third, it costs far more to get a barrel of oil out of the ground there than it does to get one from almost any other country and ship it here. Not very good economics, is it? Finally, why should we be investing in fossil fuels at all? We already know, and the recent war and gas spikes have shown us--we need to get away from fossil fuels. Why sink billions into drilling an unprofitable oil field and destroying one of the nation's national gems when we could instead sink that money into a clean alternative that will last longer than 15 years?

nobody have proven that alternatives are ready to replace oil.

As for private schools, well I can guarantee you that TU here in Tulsa pays better then OU and OSU.

Also there are private schools that cater only to autistic and metaly handicapped kids.

As for anwr, well my bad on the spelling, but one day it will happen and once we hit a few dollars a gallon I guarantee there will be a lot more people wanting to.

Here are a couple of programs that seem to spend lots o money, not saying that these are bad programs, but I guarantee you the EPA is already bigger then it needs to be.

EPA 6.453 billion
OSHA 443 million
SBA 340 million
SEC 253 million
Equal employment oportunity commission 244 million
FCC 165million
FTC 89million
Consumer product saftey comm, 40 million

Its funny we spend more (6.413billion more) to make sure the plants and animals are ok, then we do to make sure the products that are made don't kill us.