OpieCunningham

Are you really trying to convince me that the tax cuts didn't heavily target the rich?

If the rich aren't paying their share because they are able to take advantage of loopholes out of reach of the middle class, it's inherently imbalanced even with the progressive nature of our tax system.

And I won't even get into the reality that due to the nature of a capitalist society, it is a requirement that the upper class gets taxed more than the middle and lower.

onetime2

I did the research a while back by looking up Kerry's 2003 publicly disclosed tax return and using the IRS's tax tables since I was curious. I don't have the links anymore but the information is relatively easy to track down.

I didn't dispute the 12% figure because it states that it is the Kerry's combined rate. I don't know what their combined rate is because I have never bothered to look into Teresa's filings. I figured she didn't pay the 32% rate because most of the super rich don't. It is simply a fact of life that having money generally means you have a greater ability to manipulate the system. Higher taxes will not change that fact.

Bush has said his tax cuts were for everyone and they were. It was not only a cut for the wealthy as Kerry has spouted. I got my $300 checks and I'm not wealthy. My fiancee got $600 and she is not wealthy.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

If you file seperately then the combined rate is not very meaningful, no? Particularly when marrying late with seperate fortunes.

My $300 dollar check is nothing compared to the millions that others saved, particularly when considering the capital gains decrease and other non-income tax decreases. Just because everyone got something doesn't mean that the money was evenly distributed.

OpieCunningham

Well obviously higher taxes does nothing to eliminate the ability to manipulate the system - but it most certainly would lessen the impact of those manipulations.

As I asked - are you really trying to convince me that his tax cuts were not heavily targetted to the rich?

If I were President and I gave a 50% tax cut to the rich and a .05% tax cut to everyone else, I could say I cut taxes for everyone - but only a fool wouldn't roll their eyes.

onetime2

The rich got more back because they pay more. I have no problem with that. As I've said, the government does not need more money.

It's not a matter of the rich "paying their share" since they are. They are paying at least their share since they pay more in dollar terms (since it's very difficult to avoid paying all taxes). A 23% rate for someone earning $1MM certainly means more money to the government than a 23% or even 30% rate on someone earning $100k.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

OpieCunningham

You may not have a problem with it, but that doesn't mean there is not a problem with it. I agree to a degree that the government does not need more money - but where they cut their income is the issue we are discussing. Cutting taxes almost exclusively for the rich is not justified.

No, they're not. They have a tax rate which is their share - and they do not pay their tax rate.

As for the rest, you're describing the progressive nature of our tax system - this is not news to me, nor does it bolster your argument. So the rich pay more, dollar for dollar of their income directly proportional to the degree that their income exceeds those who are not rich. Yes indeed. So what? Are you half-heartedly arguing for a flat tax?

onetime2

The combined rate is meaningful if you want to look at how that "household" deals with paying taxes. To some people the fact that Kerry and his wife both minimize their tax contributions while claiming that they would have no problem paying more is bothersome. I care a little more about what Kerry does than what his wife does since she is not running for President.

Just as the $300 you got back wasn't all you paid, neither were the millions that others saved.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

pan6467

Onetime did you even look at the tax chart? Because the whole argument on lower taxes dissolves when you do.

Onetime, you got how much back and how much did your local and state and property taxes go up? Because every single state and a vast majority of local governments are raising their taxes, have initiatives to or are in the process of doing it. Sooooo with Bush's tax cuts you save how much???????

Kerry said taxes wouldn't be raised for those under $200,000 do you make more than that?

If you truly believe taxes are not going to go up for anyone in the next 4 years no matter who is elected... you live in a fantasy world. Someone is going to have to pay for the war. OOO yeah Bush can just keep dipping into Social Security.

Kerry at least has a plan to keep those under $200,000 free from increase for awhile and a plan to save SS. Bush has no plan, will allow jobs to keep going overseas (which when they do and then people get hired for less money.... who makes up for that tax burden, especially when the companies and people sending jobs overseas not only make more but pay less of a % in taxes than you do probably.)

But vote for Bush.... just like his daddy he's going to have to raise taxes or have such a deficit and fucked up system that the next president is going to be screwed.... if we don't have WW3 or a civil war first.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

onetime2

They are not cutting taxes exclusively for the rich that's the point. Everyone has received a tax cut.

They are paying their share because they are not avoiding these taxes illegally. They are making use of the loopholes present in the system. Close the current loopholes and there will be more found. There is no foolproof way to insure that the rich can't legally avoid paying the maximum tax. In fact the Supreme Court has said that there is nothing wrong with doing everything legally possible to avoid paying taxes.

I am not arguing for a flat tax. Nor am I arguing against it. I am saying the government does not need more money and I am saying that the wealthy who shout that the rich should pay more in taxes should be questioned about why it is that they choose not to despite their supposed commitment to giving more back to the country that has given them so much.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

filtherton

I know he's a liar, i just don't get all bent out of shape every time a politician lies. He said he won't raise taxes on the middle class. He will raise taxes on the wealthy.

cthulu23

When you marry someone worth $500 million you can expect to have seperate finances then them. We aren't talking a standard, middle class household. Pretending otherwise is just obfuscation. Kerry's tax strategy is probably completely seperate from his wife's. As you say, let's focus on what he does, not on his wife.

Hehe, you might not see a difference between a $300 check for the middle class and millions to those at the top, but I'm happy to say that at least 50% of this country would disagree with you.

onetime2

The argument for lower taxes does not come close to falling apart when looking at the chart.

My local taxes remained the same. I'm not sure about my state taxes because they aren't that significant in comparison but they have gone up in virtually every year that I've been paying taxes. They are not solely related to the level of federal taxes.

Kerry can not pay for his programs while only taxing those who make more than $200k. If he keeps the promise of not raising taxes on those making less than $200k he will have to break a dozen other promises of new programs or spending.

Where did I EVER say that taxes will not go up in the next four years?

The whole argument of jobs going overseas has been discussed over and over again. The numbers are virtually inconsequential in terms of tax revenue and in comparison with the number of jobs in the economy. It sure sucks if your job went overseas but there are industries that are hiring. That's the nature of the economy. I was writing about declining industries a decade ago and the need for employees (and companies that support the migrating industries) to focus on the industries which are growing in the US. There is nothing different about the current situation versus ten years ago when industries like clothing manufacturers were moving overseas.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

Umm yeah. And George Bush doesn't smirk like an idiot during debates.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

OpieCunningham

Yes. And I'll hold on tightly to my .05% savings. In the mean time, I'll continue to complain that the upper class got the vast majority of the tax cut unjustifiably.

Why are you confusing the concept of breaking the law with paying ones' share? Using the system to pay as little as you can possibly pay, with an advantage over ~90% of the country in determining methods of using the system, is not paying ones' share. Ones' share is not the amount which results from priviledged manipulation of the system. If there was a loophole which brought the tax rate for almost everyone making over $200k down to 1%, it would be, by definition, legal - but it would not be ones' share.

Sure. Which is exactly why we should not be lowering their taxes. As I said - increasing their taxes will offset their ability to maximize advantage of loopholes which are essentially unattainable to ~90% of the country. There is no foolproof way of doing anything - that doesn't mean we remove all safeguards. It doesn't mean we go in the opposite direction of attempting to mitigate the problem.

onetime2

Never said there wasn't a difference. I simply pointed out there is a very real similarity that you are not addressing. You did not get all your taxes back and neither did those you are comparing yourself to. They pay more taxes than you and a tax cut will give them more money back than you.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

I am not confusing the fair share argument with the legality of doing so in the least. They are doing everything legally to avoid taxes. Apparently Kerry agrees that if it's legal, then it's his fair share since he makes the most of the loopholes. I think everyone should pay less taxes. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, the government takes more than it needs and still spends more than it has. Having a different definition of "fair share" than you does not change my point.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

pan6467

So you can take the years off that chart that taxes were lowered and prove the economy strengthened, and yet when taxes increased by the years on those charts the economy went downhill?

State and local taxes may be comparatively low now, but they will have to increase or programs you enjoy will be gone as will state colleges and local public schools.

You didn't say Bush wouldn't raise taxes but you keep bragging about the tax cut that when he does raise your taxes you're going to be paying dearly for.

And YES, when a people lose jobs their tax money is lost (not just NATIONALLY, BUT LOCALLY, AND STATELY). If those people find a job but make less, then they are paying less in taxes and the base goes down again nationally, locally and stately. When factories get outsourced, businesses that counted on those workers to buy things lose business and end up closing down. So Nationally, locally and stately you lost the income from the factory, the workers and the businesses and workers they employed.

Yes, nationally, we may not notice the mass exodus at first, but IT WILL catch up to us and those who are rich will be paying a Hell of a lot more or emigrating the fuck out of here because the middle class won't exist and the poor won't be able to afford the taxes.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

cthulu23

So what of proportion? As I said many posts ago, just because most got some sort of refund doesn't mean the money was fairly divided.

Sure, we can all work in the service industry! That'll adequately replace that well paid factory job.

OpieCunningham

So it would be a "fair share" if they could manipulate the system legally and pay no taxes? I disagree with that definition of fair share.

I am unconcerned with the apparent hypocrisy of John Kerry on this issue. Politicians are invariably hypocrites, I've know this for many years. I am concerned with the conservative push towards disproportionate tax cuts. And I would be concerned if John Kerry, when elected, decides to lower taxes for the upper class or fails to rescind their recent tax cut.

Whether the gov't takes more than it needs does nothing to justify the disproportionate lowering of taxes across financial classes.

pan6467

By the way Onetime, IF you believe Bush is going to raise taxes but he keeps claiming he's going to cut taxes again..... doesn't that make him a BOLD FACED liar.

Whereas, at least Kerry, says that the middle class taxes and those under $200,000 won't go up but those who make more theirs will.

Kerry has a plan, it may not work and he may have to raise taxes on everyone, HOWEVER, Bush is flat out lying his ass offsaying he won't raise taxes. Then again maybe he won't ..... maybe he'll just wait and the next president will have a mess and have no choice but to raise taxes.

In another 4 years, the Boomers will be retiring so there goes more base, the industry is gone and so is that base, jobs are paying less so there goes that base. Small businesses (the backbone of our country) will be gone to places like WalMart because they couldn't afford to compete and their base doesn't have any money. Of Course WalMart will be going under as Dollar General (one of the fastest growing retail businesses today) will be the only place the majority will be able to shop. A major car company (GM or Ford) will go bankrupt or sell out to a foreign company. The biggest industry we'll have is the military it will also be a far bigger employer, than it is today so there goes massive tax dollars and government spending. Crime and drug use will be sky high. Interest rates, foreclosures and inflation will be out of control. Healthcare will only be for the rich. Bankruptcies will far exceed increases in wealth.

Yep, we can afford another 4 more years of Bush.

Why do you think Billionaires like Gates, Buffett, Soros, Allen, Wexner, Turner, and so on (people who weren't born poor, well maybe Soros) are so anti-Bush? Because they see where he is taking us and know in 4 years or even less they'll be paying far more in taxes than Kerry would ever tax them.

That maybe pessimistic but I would be willing to bet my betting sobriety (and I take my bet sobriety EXTREMELY seriously) on it being far closer to reality than what Bush or you want me to believe.

And like I said in numerous posts I hope to God I am wrong if Bush is elected and if I am I will be the first to appologize to the man and all on here who supported him. But if my reality is closer, then you best be ready, and save that $300 check Bush gives you.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Kalibah

The rich dont all have taxloopholes.

Thats the truth..

Only the VERY Rich do-I know lots of people that make over 200k and I know a hella lot of them dont use loopholes ( i talked to them)


Taking money from the most productive members of society to give it to the least...


If we just went to a FLAT tax rate- say 17% LIFe would be so much easier

Paq

i'm mainly subscribing to this post, but i want to say, does that $300 return for a full YEAR of work really make you feel all warm and comfy that YOUR tax savings was substantial? 300 over te course of a year...that makes it ok for the government to give back MILLIONS to the richest americans and drive this economy into debt.
the likes of which have never been seen...that's not even a dollar a day, you know....

but hey, if it brings all the middle class people on board for a tax cut to your biggest backers....well..

__________________
Live.

Chris

filtherton

That's what he said. I don't care if he does raise taxes on the middle class. I would be more than happy to pay more taxes if it meant increasing the quality of life of the average american. The quality of life of the average american, incidentally, being something bush could care less about.


But i know that you're not posturing here, because i have seen your concern about bush's spending habits and how you have often questioned how he plans to pay for the current military festivities.

Well, when the "most productive" couldn't function without the labor of the "least productive" it seems kinda fair to me. I think you're confused if you associate personal assets with productivity.

kutulu

Well, how about instead of Kerry bashers bitching and moaning about what some "non-partisan" group says Kerry paid, why don't we look at what he actually paid? Here is a pdf of Kerry's 2003 tax return:

Income:
Wages - 147818
Taxable Interest - 1250
Dividends - 11141
Refunds - 104
Capital Gain - 145805
Real Estate, S-Corps, etc - 89220
Total income (also equal to his adj gross) - 395338
Taxable income - 346664
Total Tax - 90575
26%

He also has an amended 2003 return where he pays an additional 11577, but his taxable income didn't change. Therefore his personal tax rate was 29.5%.

Here is a link to Kerry's website about Teressa's taxes:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...004_0511b.html

I haven't been able to find Teressa's 1040, but she already has paid 867000 towards her 2003 and 2004 taxes. Her advisors said her taxable income would be around 2.3M and she had an additional 2.8M in public entity bonds. She also donated around 4.6M to charity.

filtherton

nevermind.

quicksteal

Of course Bush's tax cuts weren't targeted to the middle class, they were targeted to everyone. Everyone needed more money--the lower and middle classes to pay their bills, and the upper class to make investments, hire people, and buy expensive crap. It's what we needed to get the economy going, and it worked: shortest recession in American history.

Now, as for Kerry's tax choices, as much as he hates paying them, he should be a Republican. In Mass., the liberals have made it optional to actually pay a higher percentage of your taxes if you choose to. John Kerry does not. And I don't blame him a bit. But it makes me wonder, if the Democrats' poster boy isn't paying the higher tax rate, who would?

onetime2

A breakdown of Kerry's taxes:

Taxable income: $395,338
Tax for the first $155,975: $42194
Tax for the difference between his income and the $155,975 (35% of $239,363): $83,777
Total tax liability before loopholes: $125,971

And the reason that you can't find Teresa's is because she does not make them public. She earned more than $2 million in non-taxable income (only the super rich are able to do that by putting loads of money into government bonds that shield her from taxes) and I think another $3 million or so in taxable income.

All the details are not available because she doesn't release them (and I don't blame her one bit since she is not running and it only offeres fodder for Kerry's opposition).

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

As I pointed out in another thread with you, there is more money available for people going to school than ever before and a lot is sitting there unused/unclaimed. Your arguments about the cost of education hold no water.

I have not bragged about the Bush tax cuts in the least, I have simply pointed out that the inaccurate portrayals of it as a "tax cut for the wealthy" are a whole lot of bullshit. Do I think Bush will raise taxes? No. I do not because I do not think he will make the same mistake as his father. Do I think it's possible? Absolutely.

Do I think Kerry will raise taxes? If he makes good on even a quarter of his promises, he has to. That leaves either not fulfilling the promises or raising taxes. Either option is a negative to me. If he doesn't fulfill the outrageous promises he is making then it proves he was just saying anything at all to get elected. You may be ok with that but I'm not.

If I had to pick a sure bet when it comes to the two candidates and taxes, I would put all my money on Kerry raising them. The next to sure bet is Bush not raising them IMO.

Again, the number of jobs going overseas is ridiculously small compared with the rest of the economy. Feel free to site some numbers to prove me wrong. I have shown numbers in many other posts about this and countless other things, and I would love for someone else to start showing the numbers that prove their points. As some may have noticed, I decided to stop putting so much work into my posts since it only ends up as "well here's what article x has to say about it" when the article doesn't even touch on the details being discussed. There are certain industries losing jobs to overseas. There are thousands of others who are not. Kerry can run screaming around the country about how terrible it is but he will NEVER stop them and will NEVER stem the flow for more than a year or two. The argument about this situation is pointless. If your jobs are moving overseas, get another fucking job. Get training or develop skills that are necessary for you to earn a living. It's not up to the President to take care of you.

If you truly believe "the middle class will not exist" then there is little I can do to change your mind. That assertion is beyond ridiculous and completely buys into the shit being shoveled by the liberals who are so anti-rich/anti-corporate that they wouldn't see reality if that's all that was on tv.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

Now here're some questions for those who believe the "Bush tax cuts" only went to the rich:

Who is more likely to spend their tax cuts, the rich or the middle class?

Do you think the "rich" grabbed the millions you think they got and went out and bought food, cars, homes, refrigerators, etc?

If the tax cut was supposed to help jump start the economy, why would any President who believed this was the way to get us out of recession and cement his chances to win re-election, give the money only to the rich who aren't going to up their spending in any appreciable way?

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

OpieCunningham

The middle class. There are far more people in the middle class and the rich are more likely to invest their money, which, as I understand the question, is not the same as spending.

Some of them. But most of them were not waiting for tax cuts to make purchases, as they already have money to make those purchases.

Because such a President has a view of economics which is questionable. If he believed that cutting taxes for the rich would jump start the economy, he would cut taxes for the rich. Whether cutting taxes for the rich jump starts an economy is highly debateable.

Tax cuts targetted for the upper class, as these tax cuts were, are intended to promote investment, not purchasing. This is trickle down economics. It is not a guarantee and we can look back over the past 3 years and see that there was no jump start to the economy. The idea is to promote investment in companies so those companies have more resources to hire, which grows the middle class. What we have clearly seen is that companies are making great strides in profits - but these increased profits are not translating into great strides in job growth. Analysis of the little job growth we have had in the past year has shown that payrolls are not increasing respectively. Tax cuts for the upper class did not result in the intended benefits to the economy because they did not trickle down.

Cutting taxes for the middle class would have been just as likely, if not more so, to promote the economy by affording the middle class the ability to make purchases that they had been putting off due to a tightening of their finances and general economic uncertainty. These purchases would then benefit the economy by placing a large flush of cash into the economy. Benefitting large companies, small companies and investors - meanwhile, the consumer confidence increases. Tax cuts targetted to the rich is a backwards method of affecting change in the economy.

cthulu23

Congratulations, you just discoverd the logical fallacy of supply side economics. It's too bad that the American people seem to be under the impression that it's the only legitimate economic idea, but that explains why the President can get away with his tax policies.

onetime2

You are confusing tax cuts for businesses (predominantly supply side) and tax cuts for individuals. As you have correctly pointed out, the wealthy will not spend more when given a tax cut.

The tax cuts put into place by Bush went to everyone and everyone that I know that got refund checks promptly spent them. That was Bush's plan and that is precisely what happened.

We can certainly argue about its impact on the economy (I agree that it was not responsible for a significant boost to the economy but it most certainly was a tiny bump).

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

As stated above, tax cuts for businesses are not the same as tax cuts for individuals (there is some overlap in the highest tiers, as has been discussed, with regard to small businesses in the campaign) but that is not what supply side deals with alone.

The Bush tax cut that sent refund checks and child tax credits to individuals and families was not directed at businesses and was not a "supply side" tax cut.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

OpieCunningham

I wasn't confusing anything. Tax cuts for the upper class are designed to promote investment, with the result being higher financial stability for businesses, with the result being pay increases and new hiring, with the result being increased consumer demand, with the result being profits for the upper class, with the result a promotion of investment. Repeat.

The goal is to increase consumer demand - if all goes according to plan. But it doesn't all go according to plan. On the other hand, giving the bulk of the tax cuts to the middle class would have directly increased consumer demand - side-stepping the pre-requisites as noted above.

Bush could have targetted the tax cuts to the middle class instead of the upper class and there would likely have been a larger bump in the economy - and if there was not, that's ok too because atleast the majority of the people benefitted from the cuts as opposed to almost exclusively the upper class.

cthulu23

Are you saying that supply side only applies to businesses? That doesn't jibe with my understanding of it. Supply siders generally want lower income tax rates across the board but feel that tax cuts for the wealthy will encourage investment more so then tax cuts for the lower economic classes. You feed the supply, not demand, side.

prb

So, who do we expect will be more likely to close tax loopholes for the richest Americans, Bush or Kerry? What have we asked the wealthiest to sacrifice while our country is at war besides the sacrifice of paying their fair share of taxes?

onetime2

Individual investors do not create supply. They do invest and there can be a massive discussion around the money multiplier effect of savings, businesses' need for investors, etc. but the basic concept of supply side economics is that businesses having more cash will mean more investment in factories, upgrades, expansion, etc. These increases mean jobs and income for the rest. Individual investors do not just send their money into the stock market. They invest in bonds, futures, precious metals, etc. The overwhelming impetus of a "supply side" strategy is creating incentives for businesses to invest (lower taxes, fewer costly controls, etc). The individual investor is but a small piece of the supposed puzzle.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

This may be your or some textbook definition of "supply-side economics" but it flies in the face of the standard definition of it. The modern, venacular understanding, as sold by Reagan, is that reducing income taxes for everyone, including individuals, will increase supply. I could post links to examples but I know that you prefer not to get into the "my article says..." contest.