Kerrys paid just 12% on combined Income tax in 2003 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Kalibah · 10-14-2004, 02:34 PM

It may have been posted before, but just because it was brought up in the debates.

"Last year, John Kerry and his wife paid just 12% of their combined income in income taxes, despite their assertion that the rich should contribute increased amounts to government coffers. In contrast, President and Mrs. Bush, who had a substantially lower income than the Kerry's, paid over 28% in taxes."

http://www.atr.org/pressreleases/200...xes-9-7-04.htm

WSJ stated on Monday that by their calculations if a flat 17% tax rate was introduced John Kerry would pay $500,000 more in taxes per year ( combined with his/his wives income).

Meanwhile hes bitching at Bush for using "tax loopholes "

From 2nd debate

Kerry: And you know why he gets that count? The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

BUSH: I own a timber company?

I also like how he says his tax increase will only effect " 3 people in this room, me, the President, and you (moderator)"

rukkyg · 10-14-2004, 02:38 PM

HAHA. He wasn't bashing bush for using tax loopholes. He was saying that the Bush campaign comes up with numbers for small business owners filing their business revenue on their personal income taxex, by including people like Bush and Cheney who claim $1-$100 and don't employ any people. One of their arguments against the tax on the rich is hurting these "small businesses". It hurts some, but not nearly as many as the campaign says.

To your main point, Kerry readily says that he gets tax breaks and doesn't think it's right. Do you honestly think that if the goverment is GIVING HIM MONEY he would, or is EVEN ABLE TO say no? Of course not! He's just getting what the current tax system says he deserves. He says he's going to change it. Bush says the current system works. Who's right?

filtherton · 10-14-2004, 02:56 PM

Bush probably used the same financial adviser that he used when coming up with the initial costs of his prescription drug plan. In other words, kerry used a better accountant.

Or, since kerry is worth more, he pays less taxes. That's the bush plan.

Halx · 10-14-2004, 03:17 PM

Yeah.. I was gonna say... shouldn't the amount of taxes Kerry pays be a reflection of the President's policies and not Kerry himself? Seems sorta funky to be trying to trap a guy on the amount of taxes he pays when it's a federally regulated thing and not his own decision.

Silly pundits.

pan6467 · 10-14-2004, 03:21 PM

I recall in I believe the second debate Kerry saying he used tax loopholes because he could and they were there. He also said it wasn't right. Big deal.

What that 12% shows me is how truly little of their income the rich pay. Yet, to hear the GOP talking heads, the rich pay 50%. I have friends who make $50,000 and less and they paid more than 12% (which for them is eating at their needs far far more than the 12% eats at the rich's needs).

Doesn't tell me Kerry's dishonest, tells me that there is something seriously wrong with the system under Bush. Kind of proves the point the rich are the ones benefitting most from the tax breaks, that Bush claims is helping everyone. How you can argue against that is beyond me.

I say flat tax on income. 10% on $35,000 - $50,000, 12% on $50,001 - $100,000 15% on $100,001 - $999,999 and 25% on $1,000,000 and up. NO LOOPHOLES, deductions for self and dependants and maybe a retirement fund for those under $100,000. Then hold people's feet to the flames and make sure they pay what they owe.

Hell, even turn it into an Amendment that says gov't can only raise tax rates in a national crisis and that the raise is temporary and is reviewed every 2 years.

I'm sure there are some grredy fucks that would argue that still isn't fair, but I have a feeling the vast majority of the people would find that more than equitable and fair.

Locke7 · 10-14-2004, 03:22 PM

Uh, I disagree. I paid higher than 12% last year, not because of the president. Because I don't have a good enough accountant to find all the loopholes. It still makes me furious that he wants to raise taxes on those that make over 200,000, which should include him. And his taxes won't go up. He needs to own up to his plan, and pay in like everyone else. If he would do that, I might be able to find some respect for the guy.

pan6467 · 10-14-2004, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke7

Uh, I disagree. I paid higher than 12% last year, not because of the president. Because I don't have a good enough accountant to find all the loopholes. It still makes me furious that he wants to raise taxes on those that make over 200,000, which should include him. And his taxes won't go up. He needs to own up to his plan, and pay in like everyone else. If he would do that, I might be able to find some respect for the guy.

Why wouldn't Kerry's taxes go up on his plan? He has even stated under his plan he would pay more.

Kalibah · 10-14-2004, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Yeah.. I was gonna say... shouldn't the amount of taxes Kerry pays be a reflection of the President's policies and not Kerry himself? Seems sorta funky to be trying to trap a guy on the amount of taxes he pays when it's a federally regulated thing and not his own decision.

Silly pundits.

Because the president's tax cut has NOTHING To do with John Kerry using loopholes to only get 14% tax rate. He uses tax shelters, and loopholes to have a lower rate. The same loopholes that he critizes the rich( and president Bush) for using ....

filtherton · 10-14-2004, 03:51 PM

The same loopholes he is promising to fix when he raises taxes on himself.

Sounds like a jerk move to me

aceventura3 · 10-14-2004, 03:53 PM

Proves that "Reaganomics" works, but not for the reasons commonly stated. Raise income tax rates and the rich will shift or defer income. Lower income taxes to a reasonable rate, it becomes "cheaper" to just pay the taxes rather than shift or defer them - and total tax dollars collected goes up. This is true up to hitting the magic equilibrium tax rate on income.

The already rich pay what they want to pay. The people who are trying to get rich are the ones getting screwed.

Ever wonder why most ultra-rich people, the ones who did not earn their own money (trust-fund babies, entertainers, etc.) are Democrat? Because Democratic economic policy benefits them and poor people.

kutulu · 10-14-2004, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ever wonder why most ultra-rich people, the ones who did not earn their own money (trust-fund babies, entertainers, etc.) are Democrat? Because Democratic economic policy benefits them and poor people.

hmm.... that is funny because usually, people say the exact opposite.

I think they are dems because they have all the money they will ever need. It's the difference between "fuck you" money (what you say to your boss when you get the money) and "fuck you republicans" money. Their taxes may go up with a dem but it isn't going to make any difference in their lives because they already have more money than they will ever need. They believe that having that extra money taken from them will help out. Since they won't miss it, they really don't care.

At least Kerry is willing to put his money where his mouth is.

pan6467 · 10-14-2004, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

The same loopholes he is promising to fix when he raises taxes on himself.

Sounds like a jerk move to me

And what if his plan is to cut loopholes? Which is one of the things he has said he would do.

I don't see a problem. Both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett say they should pay higher taxes than they do. But like 99% of the population they are going to use any loophole they can. Doesn't mean they are hypocrits it means the system needs a serious overhaul and needs to find a way to get rid of the loopholes.

The reason we were successful and had industry and the highest standard of living with very little debt in the late 40's- early 70's was because there weren't loopholes and most people felt they paid their fair shareand tax rates reached the 80 and higher % iles.

Then in the '70's we were hit with the first oil crisis an unpopular very, very expensive war, a national debt that was rising, that caused interest rates to climb and inflation to soar.

We are headed back to those 70's again, only this time we don't have any industry to help us pull out and people as a whole have become greedier and more "what's in it for me" attitude than "what can we do to help the nation become #1 again."

We either fix the problem and figure out taxes and how to keep industry or we're going to end up back in the depression days.

Here's a link to a graph showing the tax rates since the income tax's inception notice when they dropped taxes drastically and compare them to where the country was economically. Then compare when they were higher and where we were, economically and as a world leader.

LINK: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tax...s/bg1086c2.gif

filtherton · 10-14-2004, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

And what if his plan is to cut loopholes? Which is one of the things he has said he would do.

I don't see a problem. Both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett say they should pay higher taxes than they do. But like 99% of the population they are going to use any loophole they can. Doesn't mean they are hypocrits it means the system needs a serious overhaul and needs to find a way to get rid of the loopholes.

The reason we were successful and had industry and the highest standard of living with very little debt in the late 40's- early 70's was because there weren't loopholes and most people felt they paid their fair shareand tax rates reached the 80 and higher % iles.

Then in the '70's we were hit with the first oil crisis an unpopular very, very expensive war, a national debt that was rising, that caused interest rates to climb and inflation to soar.

We are headed back to those 70's again, only this time we don't have any industry to help us pull out and people as a whole have become greedier and more "what's in it for me" attitude than "what can we do to help the nation become #1 again."

We either fix the problem and figure out taxes and how to keep industry or we're going to end up back in the depression days.

Here's a link to a graph showing the tax rates since the income tax's inception notice when they dropped taxes drastically and compare them to where the country was economically. Then compare when they were higher and where we were, economically and as a world leader.

LINK: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tax...s/bg1086c2.gif

I don't see a problem either, other than my unclear attempt at sarcasm.

pan6467 · 10-14-2004, 04:26 PM

Sorry man.... just so use to others saying the same as you did and meaning it.

Just boggles my mind when you look at the graph I linked to and see that when we were great people paid far more in taxes. Never heard Henry Ford or any of the masters of industry back in the 50's complaining they paid too much in taxes.... maybe because there was a true middle class, far less debt, gov't was able to afford great schools and R&D help for companies.

filtherton · 10-14-2004, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Sorry man.... just so use to others saying the same as you did and meaning it.

Yeah, it's sad when absurdity is so commonplace.

pan6467 · 10-14-2004, 04:41 PM

For those GOP'ers that look at the graph who was president when the tax rates were at a sustained highest rate (highest rate was during WW2 and dropped back down a bit). It was Eisenhower and he is revered by what party? His years are looked upon as the greatest in US history (educationally, financially, in almost every aspect except civil rights).... and what was the tax rate? And you pay half of what was paid then and it is too high?

onetime2 · 10-14-2004, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I recall in I believe the second debate Kerry saying he used tax loopholes because he could and they were there. He also said it wasn't right. Big deal.

.

Amazing that so many in this thread excuse this activity while in the same breath blaming Bush for it.

It's wrong but I do it because I can. Yep, that's the man I want running the country. That's the man that I can trust to do the right thing.

hannukah harry · 10-14-2004, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Amazing that so many in this thread excuse this activity while in the same breath blaming Bush for it.

It's wrong but I do it because I can. Yep, that's the man I want running the country. That's the man that I can trust to do the right thing.

hmm... so you're saying it's wrong for someone to do something that is completely legal? any one will do anything they can, in general, to pay the lowest taxes possible. he's saying that he'll raise the taxes on the income bracket he's in, so he'll be forced to pay more. and if he closes loopholes? he'll pay even more. at least he's willing to change things so that he and people like him won't be able to legally pay less.

filtherton · 10-14-2004, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Amazing that so many in this thread excuse this activity while in the same breath blaming Bush for it.

It's wrong but I do it because I can. Yep, that's the man I want running the country. That's the man that I can trust to do the right thing.

As opposed to the current man running the country's mantra, "Nothing i do is ever wrong"? I don't care either way. You're in a dream world if you think a kerry white house would have less integrity than a bush white house.

pan6467 · 10-14-2004, 05:24 PM

Look at the graph Onetime.... the man that allows these loopholes and cuts social programs and allows companies to outsource and laughs that he doesn't know where Osama is, and sends our men to a war for no true reason, that holds behind the door secret mneetings with the big companies to make policy for that favors those companies,that uses religion and fear tactics to achieve his agenda and allows our country to disintegrate into 2 classes that are so far apart there is no hope.

Yeah that's the man I want as my president.

onetime2 · 10-14-2004, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

And you pay half of what was paid then and it is too high?

And the aggregate number of dollars going into the treasury is how much higher? The federal deficit (and national debt) are where?

Unless there is significant change in the freespending ways of both parties, the government will continue to spend more than they bring in. Raise tax rates to 98% and guess what? You will still have a deficit because politicians pay no price for exceeding spending limits. In fact the opposite is true. If you can bring more money back to the state you represent than it sends to Washington you are treated as a God and tend to have a long and lucrative career in politics.

cthulu23 · 10-14-2004, 05:36 PM

If arch-Republican strategist Grover Norquist says it's true, it must be, right? Never mind that Kerry and his wife file seperately, and she's the wealthy one. Combining their incomes may make for good out-of-context character assassinations but it has little to do with the reality of their tax filings. But who cares about accuracy when you can have propaganda?

onetime2 · 10-14-2004, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Look at the graph Onetime.... the man that allows these loopholes and cuts social programs and allows companies to outsource and laughs that he doesn't know where Osama is, and sends our men to a war for no true reason, that holds behind the door secret mneetings with the big companies to make policy for that favors those companies,that uses religion and fear tactics to achieve his agenda and allows our country to disintegrate into 2 classes that are so far apart there is no hope.

Yeah that's the man I want as my president.

The man that...

allows companies to outsource...

allows these loopholes...

Last I checked those laws are not created by one man. The economic forces driving outsourcing have been around longer than you or I or the President have lived and will be around longer than any of our lineage.

cthulu23 · 10-14-2004, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Unless there is significant change in the freespending ways of both parties, the government will continue to spend more than they bring in. Raise tax rates to 98% and guess what? You will still have a deficit because politicians pay no price for exceeding spending limits. In fact the opposite is true. If you can bring more money back to the state you represent than it sends to Washington you are treated as a God and tend to have a long and lucrative career in politics.

I seem to remember a budget surplus not all that many years ago.

onetime2 · 10-14-2004, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

As opposed to the current man running the country's mantra, "Nothing i do is ever wrong"? I don't care either way. You're in a dream world if you think a kerry white house would have less integrity than a bush white house.

And that mantra is no different than Kerry's. You are equally in a dream world if you think a Kerry White House will have more. He is blatantly lying in every speech because there is no way to do all the things he says he will do let alone do them without raising taxes. But let's not talk about that since it's far more popular (and easier too since the catch phrases are written out for everyone to recite) to discuss Bush's "lies".

onetime2 · 10-14-2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

I seem to remember a budget surplus not all that many years ago.

It certainly wasn't due to consistent fiscal restraint, rather it was due to perhaps the most extreme case of economic growth in the history of the world. The treasury was gaining money more than the Congress could spend it. The $5.6 trillion figure was based around unrealistic estimates which counted on the economy's continued growth at staggering rates.

onetime2 · 10-14-2004, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

hmm... so you're saying it's wrong for someone to do something that is completely legal? any one will do anything they can, in general, to pay the lowest taxes possible. he's saying that he'll raise the taxes on the income bracket he's in, so he'll be forced to pay more. and if he closes loopholes? he'll pay even more. at least he's willing to change things so that he and people like him won't be able to legally pay less.

Ummm no Harry. Those are Kerry's own words (at least according to Pan) not mine. He said it wasn't right but he does it anyway.

I have no problem with paying as little taxes as possible. Of course my consistent stance has always been that taxes should be cut for everyone because the government does not spend our money efficiently. It is Mr Kerry who is saying that the rich (which he is whether you count his wife's money or not) should pay more and yet he does not.

How much do you want to bet that Mr Kerry will never pay near the same rate as you or I? Even if he closes all the loopholes he speaks of and raises the rates he will never approach paying the top rate of 32% (or whatever it is at this time) because he will never close ALL the loopholes and he (and those others who can afford them) will continue to pay their lawyers and tax accountants (and create corporations like John Edwards) to pay as little as possible.

cthulu23 · 10-14-2004, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

But let's not talk about that since it's far more popular (and easier too since the catch phrases are written out for everyone to recite) to discuss Bush's "lies".

Far more popular to bash Bush? Are you serious? The country is split down the middle on these candidates and spiteful catch phrases are going around on all sides. Lets not be blinded by our own beliefs here.

cthulu23 · 10-14-2004, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

How much do you want to bet that Mr Kerry will never pay near the same rate as you or I? Even if he closes all the loopholes he speaks of and raises the rates he will never approach paying the top rate of 32% (or whatever it is at this time) because he will never close ALL the loopholes and he (and those others who can afford them) will continue to pay their lawyers and tax accountants (and create corporations like John Edwards) to pay as little as possible.

Let's ignore the fact that lumping his and his wife's seperate filings together is completely misleading, right? Do you even know what tax rate Kerry is paying? Does it matter?

onetime2 · 10-14-2004, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Far more popular to bash Bush? Are you serious? The country is split down the middle on these candidates and spiteful catch phrases are going around on all sides. Lets not be blinded by our own beliefs here.

I created another thread a little while back that allowed everyone to offer all the lies and distortions put out about both Kerry and Bush. The list of ones against Bush was easily two to three times as long. I agree, let's not be blinded by our own beliefs.

OpieCunningham · 10-14-2004, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

How much do you want to bet that Mr Kerry will never pay near the same rate as you or I? Even if he closes all the loopholes he speaks of and raises the rates he will never approach paying the top rate of 32% (or whatever it is at this time) because he will never close ALL the loopholes and he (and those others who can afford them) will continue to pay their lawyers and tax accountants (and create corporations like John Edwards) to pay as little as possible.

In that case ... I have a brilliant idea! Let's lower their tax rate.

onetime2 · 10-14-2004, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Let's ignore the fact that lumping his and his wife's seperate filings together is completely misleading, right? Do you even know what tax rate Kerry is paying? Does it matter?

Yes I do. Do you?

onetime2 · 10-14-2004, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

In that case ... I have a brilliant idea! Let's lower their tax rate.

So long as you lower everyone elses then I agree. Oh wait, Bush did that.

cthulu23 · 10-14-2004, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Yes I do. Do you?

So what is it? It isn't the 12% that is claimed in the linked press release.

cthulu23 · 10-14-2004, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

I created another thread a little while back that allowed everyone to offer all the lies and distortions put out about both Kerry and Bush. The list of ones against Bush was easily two to three times as long. I agree, let's not be blinded by our own beliefs.

so I can assume that the "Bush martyr" meme won't be raised again?

Sparhawk · 10-14-2004, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

If arch-Republican strategist Grover Norquist says it's true, it must be, right? Never mind that Kerry and his wife file seperately, and she's the wealthy one. Combining their incomes may make for good out-of-context character assassinations but it has little to do with the reality of their tax filings. But who cares about accuracy when you can have propaganda?

Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed this. I take anything that purveyor of the politics of personal destruction says with a VERY large grain of salt.

onetime2 · 10-14-2004, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

So what is it? It isn't the 12% that is claimed in the linked press release.

You're absolutely right it isn't the 12% and I never claimed that it was. In 2003 John Kerry paid a rate of 22.9% in Federal taxes. According to the 2003 tax tables a person who is married filing separately with an income of greater than $155,975 should pay $42,194 as a base and then 35% of the amount over $155975. That would have put Kerry at a 31.9% rate. I know I would love to be able to get almost a 10% reduction in what I pay in taxes but I do not have the knowledge or the resources that Mr Kerry (or Mr Bush or any number of our other elected leaders) has.

I do not fault them for paying as little as they can. I do fault them for claiming that the "rich" should be paying more and claiming that they would be glad to contribute more and yet they use every possible method of avoiding them.

onetime2 · 10-14-2004, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

so I can assume that the "Bush martyr" meme won't be raised again?

I'll make you a deal, I'll only bring it up when Kerry supporters whine about how unfair their candidate is being treated and how the mean old Republicans are twisting his words.

cthulu23 · 10-14-2004, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

You're absolutely right it isn't the 12% and I never claimed that it was. In 2003 John Kerry paid a rate of 22.9% in Federal taxes. According to the 2003 tax tables a person who is married filing separately with an income of greater than $155,975 should pay $42,194 as a base and then 35% of the amount over $155975. That would have put Kerry at a 31.9% rate. I know I would love to be able to get almost a 10% reduction in what I pay in taxes but I do not have the knowledge or the resources that Mr Kerry (or Mr Bush or any number of our other elected leaders) has.

I do not fault them for paying as little as they can. I do fault them for claiming that the "rich" should be paying more and claiming that they would be glad to contribute more and yet they use every possible method of avoiding them.

Although I don't doubt your numbers, a source would be nice.

You may not have claimed that the 12% number was right, but you sure didn't claim that it was wrong until that fact was brought up by others.

"Every possible method of avoiding them?" You should start qualifying that statement. As far as we know, Kerry could have had massive deductions based on charitable contributions. I doubt that this is the case, but you also can't assume too much in the opposite direction.

It may be a little disingenuous for Kerry to say that he should pay more in taxes if he is avoiding the collection process, but not more so then Bush's statements that his tax cuts were targeted to the middle class. Those numbers don't add up, either.

cthulu23 · 10-14-2004, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

I'll make you a deal, I'll only bring it up when Kerry supporters whine about how unfair their candidate is being treated and how the mean old Republicans are twisting his words.

Two words..."Bush haters."

10-14-2004, 02:34 PM	#1 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	Kerrys paid just 12% on combined Income tax in 2003 It may have been posted before, but just because it was brought up in the debates. "Last year, John Kerry and his wife paid just 12% of their combined income in income taxes, despite their assertion that the rich should contribute increased amounts to government coffers. In contrast, President and Mrs. Bush, who had a substantially lower income than the Kerry's, paid over 28% in taxes." http://www.atr.org/pressreleases/200...xes-9-7-04.htm WSJ stated on Monday that by their calculations if a flat 17% tax rate was introduced John Kerry would pay $500,000 more in taxes per year ( combined with his/his wives income). Meanwhile hes bitching at Bush for using "tax loopholes " From 2nd debate Kerry: And you know why he gets that count? The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right. BUSH: I own a timber company? I also like how he says his tax increase will only effect " 3 people in this room, me, the President, and you (moderator)"

10-14-2004, 03:17 PM	#4 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Yeah.. I was gonna say... shouldn't the amount of taxes Kerry pays be a reflection of the President's policies and not Kerry himself? Seems sorta funky to be trying to trap a guy on the amount of taxes he pays when it's a federally regulated thing and not his own decision. Silly pundits. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-14-2004, 03:21 PM	#5 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I recall in I believe the second debate Kerry saying he used tax loopholes because he could and they were there. He also said it wasn't right. Big deal. What that 12% shows me is how truly little of their income the rich pay. Yet, to hear the GOP talking heads, the rich pay 50%. I have friends who make $50,000 and less and they paid more than 12% (which for them is eating at their needs far far more than the 12% eats at the rich's needs). Doesn't tell me Kerry's dishonest, tells me that there is something seriously wrong with the system under Bush. Kind of proves the point the rich are the ones benefitting most from the tax breaks, that Bush claims is helping everyone. How you can argue against that is beyond me. I say flat tax on income. 10% on $35,000 - $50,000, 12% on $50,001 - $100,000 15% on $100,001 - $999,999 and 25% on $1,000,000 and up. NO LOOPHOLES, deductions for self and dependants and maybe a retirement fund for those under $100,000. Then hold people's feet to the flames and make sure they pay what they owe. Hell, even turn it into an Amendment that says gov't can only raise tax rates in a national crisis and that the raise is temporary and is reviewed every 2 years. I'm sure there are some grredy fucks that would argue that still isn't fair, but I have a feeling the vast majority of the people would find that more than equitable and fair. __________________ 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?"

10-14-2004, 04:26 PM	#14 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Sorry man.... just so use to others saying the same as you did and meaning it. Just boggles my mind when you look at the graph I linked to and see that when we were great people paid far more in taxes. Never heard Henry Ford or any of the masters of industry back in the 50's complaining they paid too much in taxes.... maybe because there was a true middle class, far less debt, gov't was able to afford great schools and R&D help for companies. __________________ 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?" Last edited by pan6467; 10-14-2004 at 04:33 PM..

10-14-2004, 04:41 PM	#16 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	For those GOP'ers that look at the graph who was president when the tax rates were at a sustained highest rate (highest rate was during WW2 and dropped back down a bit). It was Eisenhower and he is revered by what party? His years are looked upon as the greatest in US history (educationally, financially, in almost every aspect except civil rights).... and what was the tax rate? And you pay half of what was paid then and it is too high? __________________ 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?"

10-14-2004, 02:38 PM	#2 (permalink)
rukkyg Loser Location: RPI, Troy, NY	HAHA. He wasn't bashing bush for using tax loopholes. He was saying that the Bush campaign comes up with numbers for small business owners filing their business revenue on their personal income taxex, by including people like Bush and Cheney who claim $1-$100 and don't employ any people. One of their arguments against the tax on the rich is hurting these "small businesses". It hurts some, but not nearly as many as the campaign says. To your main point, Kerry readily says that he gets tax breaks and doesn't think it's right. Do you honestly think that if the goverment is GIVING HIM MONEY he would, or is EVEN ABLE TO say no? Of course not! He's just getting what the current tax system says he deserves. He says he's going to change it. Bush says the current system works. Who's right?

10-14-2004, 02:56 PM	#3 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Bush probably used the same financial adviser that he used when coming up with the initial costs of his prescription drug plan. In other words, kerry used a better accountant. Or, since kerry is worth more, he pays less taxes. That's the bush plan.

10-14-2004, 03:22 PM	#6 (permalink)
Locke7 Insane	Uh, I disagree. I paid higher than 12% last year, not because of the president. Because I don't have a good enough accountant to find all the loopholes. It still makes me furious that he wants to raise taxes on those that make over 200,000, which should include him. And his taxes won't go up. He needs to own up to his plan, and pay in like everyone else. If he would do that, I might be able to find some respect for the guy.

10-14-2004, 03:51 PM	#9 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The same loopholes he is promising to fix when he raises taxes on himself. Sounds like a jerk move to me

10-14-2004, 03:53 PM	#10 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Proves that "Reaganomics" works, but not for the reasons commonly stated. Raise income tax rates and the rich will shift or defer income. Lower income taxes to a reasonable rate, it becomes "cheaper" to just pay the taxes rather than shift or defer them - and total tax dollars collected goes up. This is true up to hitting the magic equilibrium tax rate on income. The already rich pay what they want to pay. The people who are trying to get rich are the ones getting screwed. Ever wonder why most ultra-rich people, the ones who did not earn their own money (trust-fund babies, entertainers, etc.) are Democrat? Because Democratic economic policy benefits them and poor people.

10-14-2004, 05:24 PM	#20 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Look at the graph Onetime.... the man that allows these loopholes and cuts social programs and allows companies to outsource and laughs that he doesn't know where Osama is, and sends our men to a war for no true reason, that holds behind the door secret mneetings with the big companies to make policy for that favors those companies,that uses religion and fear tactics to achieve his agenda and allows our country to disintegrate into 2 classes that are so far apart there is no hope. Yeah that's the man I want as my president. __________________ 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?"

10-14-2004, 05:36 PM	#22 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	If arch-Republican strategist Grover Norquist says it's true, it must be, right? Never mind that Kerry and his wife file seperately, and she's the wealthy one. Combining their incomes may make for good out-of-context character assassinations but it has little to do with the reality of their tax filings. But who cares about accuracy when you can have propaganda?