1 of the truths about tax cuts: - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 03-22-2005, 02:44 PM

Ok, so I'm listening to Mike Trivisonno on Cleveland's WTAM 1100 AM and he has on a rep. fro Miller Brewing talking about how Ohio plans to double the excise tax on beer. Right now Ohio pays 18 cents a gallon, Penn. pays 8, Ky. pays 8, Ind. pays 12.

This rep implied heavily (saying it in just about any possible way without saying it onb a CC radio station) that the taxes are Ohio's (please note, Gov. taft is a Rep. as is the Ohio house) way to make up for tax cuts.

He also stated:

- that it would hurt the 55% of Ohioans that buy beer, because they make less than 45,000. So the poor do pay for the tax cuts......

- that it Miller would probably shut down it's Ohio brewery (costing 600 jobs)

- that it would affect the suppliers, the building contractors who were going to add onto the facility

- that they project more people would buy cheaper beer and end up costing Ohio tax money because the cheaper beers cost less thus are taxed less

- that Ohio already has a state minimum on beer of 25% over cost, 1/2 of which goes to the state as an added tax.

What people don't see is that these income tax cuts that Bush and the GOP give to the rich, are killing the states and cities who have to raise their taxes, in hidden ways, that affect the lower classes far more than the uppers. Plus, as Bush's deficit spending continues to grow out of control.... those cuts aren't cuts in spending.

I"m sure the GOP will fight this by saying well the poor need to drink less.... or whatever, blaming the lower classes for this instead of sucking it up and paying their fair share. Instead, they'll cry about how taxes are still to high for them.

Well when the deficit comes to a head and we have to start paying it.... guess what the rich will be paying far far more than they ever imagined because as jobs get outsourced, as wages decline and factories close.... the rich will be the only tax base that can pay.

Instead of working for tax cuts work on a solution to increase the tax base fairly. Maybe it will require sacrifice from the rich and lower classes but it's far better than the course we are on now.

Seaver · 03-22-2005, 03:51 PM

You know the great thing about sin taxes? If you dont like them you dont have to pay them.

That's right, you dont have to pay sin taxes. Just like I dont pay for the taxes known as the lottery. It's a choice, thus there is nothing "unfair" about it.

And yes, increased taxes hurt business thus jobs. Guess what... that's why Bush cut them.

KMA-628 · 03-22-2005, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

What people don't see is that these income tax cuts that Bush and the GOP give to the rich, are killing the states and cities who have to raise their taxes, in hidden ways, that affect the lower classes far more than the uppers. Plus, as Bush's deficit spending continues to grow out of control.... those cuts aren't cuts in spending.

Pan -

You know this isn't true.

The "crunch" felt by the cities/states happened because of the recession & 9/11. It happened because cities/states spent more than they were taking in, way more....and thought they could get away with it.

They assumed that revenue for them (which doesn't come from the income taxes that were cut) would continue to increase like it was in the 90's. They spent like revenue was going to increase like it did, even when all of the experts told them that the bubble would burst.

Then, when revenue fell, they weren't prepared.

Revenue from income taxes and corporate taxes to the federal gov't are at all time high's--at or surpassing Clinton's highest levels (I have posted the evidence here many, many times). If the tax cuts were hurting gov't revenue, then the numbers would be going down, not up, as they are and have been since 2001.

The bigger problem, closer to this issue, is our-of-control spending, not tax cuts. The money is coming in just fine, the problem is in the outlays.

NCB · 03-22-2005, 04:05 PM

Ask anyone that makes six figures if they're under taxed and see what they have to say.

kutulu · 03-22-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Ask anyone that makes six figures if they're under taxed and see what they have to say.

That is a pointless statement. The thing with people making in excess of 100k is that they still consider themselves to be middle class when in fact they are not. Last time I checked being middle class didn't mean you were in the top 7% of all wage earners.

nofnway · 03-22-2005, 05:06 PM

Sin taxes suck because they are usually proposed by someone who "hates" your sin but loves their own...

The Lottery as a tax...Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math

nofnway · 03-22-2005, 05:13 PM

the claim that raising the beer tax is to make up for the tax cuts smacks of the fallacy of a false cause. After this therefore because of this......That way the Rep and/or the legislature can avoid blame for any of their decisions. The rep is engaging in scare tactics in order to protect his interest...the things he says may or not be true but he certainly has something to lose if taxes increase.

Hardknock · 03-23-2005, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Pan -

You know this isn't true.

Just like how Bush's tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy with new jobs but cutting taxes for business and in turn business would invest in their employees thereby creating new jobs? If you don't know that a business's first responsibility is to the shareholders and not the employees, the somebody needs to go back and take BA 101.

On the other hand, I guess they did, if you factor in Wal-mart and the like.

host · 03-23-2005, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Pan -

You know this isn't true.

The "crunch" felt by the cities/states happened because of the recession & 9/11. It happened because cities/states spent more than they were taking in, way more....and thought they could get away with it.

They assumed that revenue for them (which doesn't come from the income taxes that were cut) would continue to increase like it was in the 90's. They spent like revenue was going to increase like it did, even when all of the experts told them that the bubble would burst.

Then, when revenue fell, they weren't prepared.

Revenue from income taxes and corporate taxes to the federal gov't are at all time high's--at or surpassing Clinton's highest levels (I have posted the evidence here many, many times). If the tax cuts were hurting gov't revenue, then the numbers would be going down, not up, as they are and have been since 2001.

The bigger problem, closer to this issue, is our-of-control spending, not tax cuts. The money is coming in just fine, the problem is in the outlays.

KMA-628, how should Pan....or anyone else react to you assertion that "you know this isn't true", solely because you say so? I cannot confirm or refute
your assertions, you offer only your strongly worded opinion.............
This is a subject well suited for posts containing well researched findings,
facts, and figures from sources with reputations for publishing non-partisan,
timely, comprehensive reports on the effects of government tax policies.

My research indicates that the problem appears to be tax cutting that a majority of states did in the late 90's, that have not been restored to make up for declining revenue, aggravated by Bush and the Republican Legislature's tax policies:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/9-13-04sfp.htm">http://www.cbpp.org/9-13-04sfp.htm</a>
About My Source, "The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/info.html#unique">What Makes the Center Effective
In a 1998 Aspen Institute survey of members of Congress of both parties and Administration officials, the Center was identified as the single most influential non-profit organization in Washington on federal budget policy. Of the six policy areas covered by the survey, the Center was the sole organization rated “one of the 10 most effective” in at least four areas: budget policy, family and welfare policy, health policy, and housing and community development. The other two areas covered by the survey are areas in which we do not work.</a>
September 13, 2004

A BRIEF UPDATE ON STATE FISCAL CONDITIONS
AND THE EFFECTS OF FEDERAL POLICIES ON STATE BUDGETS

............... State taxes now make up a smaller share of the economy than at any time in the last thirty years, with the exception of the double-dip recession of the early 1980s.

The decline in state revenue would have been even worse had not a majority of states raised taxes. Since late 2001, about 31 states have expanded their tax bases or increased tax rates to lessen the decline in revenues. Such tax increases have been enacted in states with Republican leadership, Democratic leadership, and bipartisan leadership. These net tax increases are raising some $20.2 billion annually, about 3.6 percent of total state tax collections.

Nevertheless, the tax increases enacted during this downturn are far fewer and smaller than the tax cuts enacted during the economic expansion of the 1990s. From 1994 to 2001, some 44 states enacted significant tax cuts. The economic boom of the late 1990s, and in particular the large increase in capital gains during those years, temporarily offset the revenue loss resulting from those tax cuts. Those temporary economic conditions have ended. Yet most of the tax cuts of the 1990s remain in place and are costing states some $40 billion or more per year.

It also is worth noting that while most of the tax cuts of the 1990s were in progressive taxes (taxes that fall most heavily on higher-income households), most of the recent tax increases have been in regressive taxes. In other words, lower-income households benefited less from the tax cuts of the 1990s and now are being hurt more by the tax hikes of 2001-2004...............................

Federal Policies Are Worsening the State Fiscal Crisis[5]

Federal policies are contributing significantly to the state fiscal crisis by reducing state revenues and imposing additional costs on states. We estimate that federal policies are costing states and localities more than $175 billion over the four-year course of the fiscal crisis (state fiscal years 2002-2005). These policies include:

* Tax cuts. Some of the federal tax cuts enacted since 2001 are reducing state revenues because of linkages between the federal and state tax codes.

* Restrictions on state taxation. For example, the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, first enacted in 1998, bars states from taxing the access fees that people pay for Internet service. In addition, two Supreme Court cases prevent state and local governments from collecting sales taxes on most catalog or Internet purchases, even though sales taxes apply when the very same items are purchased in retail stores. Federal legislation has recently been introduced to correct this problem but has not garnered significant support from Congress or the Administration, and its passage is not expected anytime soon.

* Unfunded mandates. In several policy areas, such as special education and the No Child Left Behind education initiative, the federal government has placed requirements on state and local governments without adequately funding them.

* Shifting health care costs. For more than a decade, the cost of health care for low-income elderly and disabled people (in other words, people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid) has been shifting from Medicare to Medicaid. A prominent reason is the increasing use of prescription drugs, which Medicaid covers but Medicare has not. Because Medicare is fully federally funded, while states pay nearly half of all Medicaid costs, this shift in costs from Medicare to Medicaid has increased the financial pressure on states.

The recently enacted Medicare drug bill will leave states responsible for the bulk of these drug costs even after the new Medicare drug benefit takes effect. Under the drug bill, seniors and disabled individuals eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid will receive drug coverage through Medicare. But, while this will produce significant savings for state Medicaid programs, states will be required to return most of these savings to the federal government.

These federal policies have hit the poorest states especially hard. This is partly because the populations of these states have the greatest need for government services, and partly because these states are the least able to raise their own funds to pay for services.

The $20 billion in fiscal relief Congress provided in 2003 has helped states cope with the fiscal crisis, but it pales in comparison to the size of the problem, and the large deficits faced by the federal government prevent it from doing more. It is worth noting that a significant part of the projected federal deficits is caused by the 2001, 2002 and 2003 tax cuts, which primarily benefit households least in need of assistance. For example, as a result of the tax cuts, households making over $1 million a year are receiving an average tax cut in 2004 of $124,000 each, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Conclusion

Having closed large budget deficits for three consecutive years through spending cuts and tax increases (as well as a variety of budget gimmicks), many states are facing continuing budget problems in fiscal year 2005 and beyond. The duration of the fiscal crisis means states are being forced to take increasingly painful steps, such as cutting back on important services on which many low- and middle-income families rely — cutting child care and health care programs, raising college tuitions, and the like.

The federal government could alleviate the state fiscal crisis by scaling back the costly tax cuts of the past few years and using the freed-up funds to support more positive policies toward states. Otherwise, the low- and middle-income families that are subject to state tax increases and service cuts will, in essence, be paying for the very generous federal tax cuts for the highest-income Americans.

[5] See Iris J. Lav and Andrew Brecher, <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/5-12-04sfp.htm">Passing Down the Deficit: Federal Policies Contribute to the Severity of the State Fiscal Crisis, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 2004.</a>

host · 03-23-2005, 02:44 AM

From the same source as above:<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/fedtax.htm">http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/fedtax.htm</a>
I was happy to find these links to current research reports from the non-partisan "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" . The findings and conclusions seem to refute much of what our federal executive and legislative leaders have been advocating and communicating to all of us about the goals and justifications for their tax "reform" legislation and policy positions.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.htm" style="text-decoration: none" target="_new">
Estate Tax Reform Could Raise Much-Needed Revenue: Some Reform Options With Low Tax Rates Raise Very Little Revenue
</a>
Joel Friedman and Ruth Carlitz

3/16/05
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.htm" target="_new">123K-HTML</a>,
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.pdf" target="_new">100K-PDF</a>, 12pp. 

Fact Sheet: <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax-fact.htm" style="text-decoration: none" target="_new">

If Done Properly, Reforming The Estate Tax Could Preserve Much-Needed Revenue
</a>
3/16/05
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax-fact.htm" target="_new">23K-HTML</a>,
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax-fact.pdf" target="_new">24K-PDF</a>, 2pp. 

<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-10-05tax.htm" style="text-decoration: none" target="_new">

Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Unlikely to Yield Touted Economic Gains: Benefits of These Tax Cuts Flow Disproportionately To The Well-Off
</a>
Joel Friedman
3/10/05
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-10-05tax.htm" target="_new">83K-HTML</a>,
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-10-05tax.pdf" target="_new">78K-PDF</a>, 16pp.

<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-7-05tax.htm" style="text-decoration: none" target="_new">
What New CBO Data Indicate About Long-Term Income Distribution Trends</a> 
Isaac Shapiro
3/7/05
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-7-05tax.htm" target="_new">33K-HTML</a>,
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/3-7-05tax.pdf" target="_new">24K-PDF</a>, 2pp. 

<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05tax.htm" style="text-decoration: none" target="_new">
Two Tax Cuts That Benefit Only High-Income Households —Primarily Millionaires — Slated To Start Taking Effect In 2006:
Will These Tax Cuts Be Implemented While Basic Programs For The
Working Poor And Other Families Are Cut?</a>

by Robert Greenstein, Joel Friedman, and Isaac Shapiro
Revised 2/24/05
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05tax.htm" target="_new">35K-HTML</a>,
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05tax.pdf" target="_new">37K-PDF</a>, 5pp.

<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/2-18-05sfp.htm" target="_new" style="text-decoration: none;">The 6th Circuit Cuno Decision Voiding Ohio’s Investment Tax Credit: Modest But Helpful "Arms Control" In The "Economic War Between The States"</a>
Michael Mazerov
2/18/05
Summary:
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/2-18-05sfp.htm" target="_new"> 36K-HTML</a>
Full Report:
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/2-18-05sfp.pdf" target="_new"> 102K-PDF</a>, 21pp. 

<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05tax.htm" style="text-decoration: none" target="_new">
Extending the Tax Cuts Would Cost $2.1 Trillion Through 2015</a> 
Joel Friedman, Ruth Carlitz, and David Kamin
Revised
2/9/05 
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05tax.htm" target="_new">50K-HTML</a>,
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05tax.pdf" target="_new">49K-PDF</a>, 7pp. 

<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud2.htm" target="_new" style="text-decoration: none;">
The Simple Story: Tax Cuts Lose Revenues</a> 
Richard Kogan
1/25/05
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud2.htm" target="_new">13K-HTML</a>,
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud2.pdf" target="_new">28K-PDF</a>, 2pp. 

<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/1-13-05sfp4.htm" target="_new" style="text-decoration: none;">
States Can Decouple From the “Qualified Production Activities Income” Deduction</a>
Nicholas Johnson and Elizabeth McNichol
1/13/05
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/1-13-05sfp4.htm" target="_new">90K-HTML</a>,
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/1-13-05sfp4.pdf" target="_new">45K-PDF</a>, 9pp. 

<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm" target="_new" style="text-decoration: none;">
President Portrays Social Security Shortfall As Enormous, But His Tax Cuts And Drug Benefit Will Cost At Least Five Times As Much </a>
Richard Kogan and Robert Greenstein 
Revised
1/10/05
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm" target="_new"> 27K-HTML</a>,
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.pdf" target="_new"> 42K-PDF</a>, 5pp. 


<img src="http://www.cbpp.org/images/px-clear.gif" width="100%" height="1" alt="" border="0">
</td>
<td width="8" valign="top"> </td>


</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

dksuddeth · 03-23-2005, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

You know the great thing about sin taxes? If you dont like them you dont have to pay them.

That's right, you dont have to pay sin taxes. Just like I dont pay for the taxes known as the lottery. It's a choice, thus there is nothing "unfair" about it.

And yes, increased taxes hurt business thus jobs. Guess what... that's why Bush cut them.

so far, the only religion i'm aware of that prohibits consuming the fermentation of grape or grain has been islam. so I have to ask......who made drinking beer a sin?

Seaver · 03-23-2005, 08:09 AM

Quote:

so far, the only religion i'm aware of that prohibits consuming the fermentation of grape or grain has been islam. so I have to ask......who made drinking beer a sin?

The term was made under the Clinton administration when he jacked up the taxes on everything from alcohol to tobacco. I wasn't declaring it a sin, I was using the terminology the Democrats used at the time and what it has become known as.

pan6467 · 03-23-2005, 09:20 AM

I personally don't drink beer and rarely drink alcohol at all..... (turns into a semi-formaldahyde in your body and depletes your seratonin). But there are many that do and to punish them for doing so, so that we may have a President who runs deeper red ink than ever before cut taxes on the rich is pathetic and unjust.

Where are the capital gains taxes? Where are raising tarriffs? Where is an inheritance tax? Why tax those who can not afford to be taxed more when they choose to try to enjoy themselves a little? While the upper echelons (and I'm not talking anyone making less than a million), keep getting their taxes cut?

From replies on here I can see that the right cares not about the problems that face the cities, states and even the nation but about their own wallets. Perhaps if we raised tarrifs and taxed companies that sent jobs overseas we would be able to build a tax base where the burdens could be shared equally..... But the Right refuses to allow or want to even discuss that.

They would rather tax the beer and the alcohol and items that the lower classes on average spend more on, than to set a flat income tax or tax lurury items or have an inheritance tax.

As Pink Floyd sang:

Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and you're okay.
Money, it's a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit.
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit.
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet.

Money, it's a crime.
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away.

NCB · 03-23-2005, 09:36 AM

Pan, the top 50% of wage earner pay over 96% of federal income taxes. Why should they pay more? I say the lower 50% need to pay their fair share

pan6467 · 03-23-2005, 09:48 AM

Did I say that or did I say the upper echelons that make over a million the very top .05% that pay what the wipe their arses with?

If my dad makes $5 million and pays under $2.5 million in taxes (state, local and Federal) and still drives a Porsche, a Range Rover, 2 Benzes, has a time share in Fire Island and takes 3 or 4 trips a year to Jamaica and the Carribean, has season tickets to the Indians and belongs to Muirfield Village Golf Course, and his taxes keep getting cut, while my wife and I barely make $30,000 and with taxes we pay about $5,000 and the hidden sales taxes keep going up, who misses the money the most?

And no it's not a slam on my father, it's a totally realistic question. Even he believes he doesn't pay his fair share, he sees that his tax cuts are being paid for by his children who barely make livings.

So to use that tired cliche that the upper 50% pay more than the poor is tripe because the poor pay far more than they can afford.

raveneye · 03-23-2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

The term was made under the Clinton administration when he jacked up the taxes on everything from alcohol to tobacco. I wasn't declaring it a sin, I was using the terminology the Democrats used at the time and what it has become known as.

It is interesting what you learn about Clinton and Democrats on this board. To set the record straight:

1. Clinton and Democrats did not coin the term "sin tax". The word has been around probably since the 1790s and the Whiskey Rebellion.

2. Democrats and Clinton did not invent "sin taxes."

3. In fact, Alexander Hamilton probably should be credited with enacting the first federal "sin tax", on whiskey, in 1793.

Alexander Hamilton, by the way, was the leader of the conservative Federalist party.

4. Ever since then, Republicans have often proposed increases in sin taxes. For example, Ronald Reagan in 1982, along with his supply-side advisors, advocated doubling the excise taxes on gas, wine, and hard liquor.

His tax advisors told him that this would be a good deal, because raising excise taxes has less of a disincentive effect on work and investment than other forms of raising revenue.

kutulu · 03-23-2005, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Pan, the top 50% of wage earner pay over 96% of federal income taxes. Why should they pay more? I say the lower 50% need to pay their fair share

Hmm... another fine example of useless one-liner. I don't know how many times I've had to shoot this crap down here and in other message boards. The lower 50% DO pay their fair share. Your little statistic is the most deceptive 'information' Rush ever posted.

Although the top 50% did indeed pay 96% in 2001, they also collected 86% of all money earned that year.

Here is a litle bit of information if you would like to see the full truth:

http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/richpay.html

Quote:

Code:

                                 Top 50   Top 25   Top 10    Top 5    Top 1
Percent share of...      Total  Percent  Percent  Percent  Percent  Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted gross income   100.00    86.19    65.23    43.11    31.99    17.53
Total income tax.....   100.00    96.03    82.90    64.89    53.25    33.89
Population...........   100.00    50.00    25.00    10.00     5.00     1.00
AGI floor ($thousand)      N/A    28.53    56.09    92.75   127.90   292.91

As can be seen, the upper 50 percent of wage earners, who earn $28.5 thousand and above, did pay 96.03% of all income taxes. Now, following are the same numbers, divided up into distinct percentile groups:

Code:

PERCENT OF INCOME EARNED AND TAXES PAID OF SELECTED DISTINCT PERCENTILES

                          0-50    50-75    75-90    90-95    95-99    Top 1
Percent share of...    Percent  Percent  Percent  Percent  Percent  Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted gross income    13.81    20.96    22.12    11.12    14.46    17.53
Total income tax.....     3.97    13.13    18.01    11.64    19.36    33.89
Population...........    50.00    25.00    15.00     5.00     4.00     1.00
AGI floor ($thousand)      N/A    28.53    56.09    92.75   127.90   292.91

Look at those numbers again. Everyone outside of the top 10% contributed a smaller tax share that their income share. Furthermore, only the top 1% are paying at a rate significantlly higher than their share of income. Personally I'm not going to cry about a group that makes their money by forcing everyone else to work for shit wages.

The bottom line is that if you are getting your information from Rush you are only getting half of the truth.

dksuddeth · 03-23-2005, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The term was made under the Clinton administration when he jacked up the taxes on everything from alcohol to tobacco. I wasn't declaring it a sin, I was using the terminology the Democrats used at the time and what it has become known as.

lets see, under clinton there was a republican majority so that would have to mean that the republicans proposed this tax increase on these specific items, right? so maybe the religious right special interest groups got this started and coined the phrase 'sin tax'.

Willravel · 03-23-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

That is a pointless statement. The thing with people making in excess of 100k is that they still consider themselves to be middle class when in fact they are not. Last time I checked being middle class didn't mean you were in the top 7% of all wage earners.

Middle class is not just a nationwide class. In my city and county, I am middle class. I make somewhere areound $125k gross. Upper class in my area starts around $230k. In the place I used to live in, *nameles city to keep my identity offline*, the mean income was around $36k. Upper class there was above $80-90k. You have to adjust for income and real estate in areas. When I make $125k a year, I can own a home and make payments on nice cars and buy food and utilities, and still have a bit left over. If I made this amount and lived even 100 miles inland from here, I could live in a 5-6 bedroom house, drive an Astin Martin, and get that giant 50 inch plasma TV I've always wanted. You can't average out over the entire country when it comes to how far income will get you. It is relative.

I live in a small house that is worth like $500-600k. If my house were built exactly the same in Missouri, it would be worth maybe $95k.

NCB · 03-23-2005, 11:00 AM

From Kutulu's article:

Quote:

Rush finds this last statement important enough to highlight in red. The problem is that it is wrong. Earlier in the article, Rush states that the top 1% is paying 33.89% of taxes. This is not "more than ten times" the 3.97% paid by the bottom 50%. It's about 8.5 times.

Oh, ok

Quote:

Over 99 percent of estate and gift taxes were paid by the top quintile of wage earners. Hence, while these numbers do not indicate how much of any group's wealth is inherited, they do indicate that the great majority of great inherited wealth (great enough to qualify for the estate tax) goes to those who already have high incomes

So, in essence the rich both pay the inheritance taxes AND recieve their family's inheritance?? No fair!!

Quote:

The very largest tax cut of 33% goes to the lowest-wage workers in the newly created 10% tax bracket

There goes that tax cuts for the rich thingy

Kutulu, if that's the article that's going to blow away the 96% thingy, I think you're going to be disappointed. At best it splitting hairs and at worst, it's helping reenforce then argument.

Putting that aside for the moment, how muh more of my tax dollars do you want to confiscate for the govt? I'm in 94-99% bracket for reference

kutulu · 03-23-2005, 11:01 AM

Be that as it may will, but the fact remains that it still puts you in at around the top 5%.

NCB · 03-23-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Be that as it may will, but the fact remains that it still puts you in at around the top 5%.

You say that as if it's a bad thing and that he should feel guilty about it. Why?

kutulu · 03-23-2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Kutulu, if that's the article that's going to blow away the 96% thingy, I think you're going to be disappointed. At best it splitting hairs and at worst, it's helping reenforce then argument.

How convenient, you said absolutely nothing about this:

Code:

PERCENT OF INCOME EARNED AND TAXES PAID OF SELECTED DISTINCT PERCENTILES

                          0-50    50-75    75-90    90-95    95-99    Top 1
Percent share of...    Percent  Percent  Percent  Percent  Percent  Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted gross income    13.81    20.96    22.12    11.12    14.46    17.53
Total income tax.....     3.97    13.13    18.01    11.64    19.36    33.89
Population...........    50.00    25.00    15.00     5.00     4.00     1.00
AGI floor ($thousand)      N/A    28.53    56.09    92.75   127.90   292.91

YOU brough in the whole 50% pay 95% crap. I posted that it's a half truth, you have no response yet. Your response was the equivalent to holding your hands to your ears and saying "la la la la la"

Quote:

Putting that aside for the moment, how muh more of my tax dollars do you want to confiscate for the govt? I'm in 94-99% bracket for reference

Whatever is necessary to ensure that the people making less than 29k/year don't have to pay more taxes that they can't afford and can have reasonable health care. The selfish upper class has decided to chose to give themselves more money at the expense of the workers that keep their system running. If they aren't going to willingly give their workers the means to take care of themselves, we'll take it from them.

Since you brought up the disparity in taxes paid by the bottom 50%, how much more do you want to take from a family of 4 that nets less than 29k/year?

Err on the side of life, as long as they aren't capable of living. Screw the people that actually need help.

kutulu · 03-23-2005, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

You say that as if it's a bad thing and that he should feel guilty about it. Why?

It's nothing to feel guilty about. All I was saying was that it doesn't put him in the middle class.

KMA-628 · 03-23-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

KMA-628, how should Pan....or anyone else react to you assertion that "you know this isn't true", solely because you say so? I cannot confirm or refute
your assertions, you offer only your strongly worded opinion.............
This is a subject well suited for posts containing well researched findings,
facts, and figures from sources with reputations for publishing non-partisan,
timely, comprehensive reports on the effects of government tax policies.

First, you should note that I have always taken issue with CBPP, anytime anyone has used them as a reference. They are hardly non-partisan and hardly accurate--see my past posts on them (i.e. SS threads).

Second, the irony in this is kinda funny.

In another thread, someone made outlandish claims about the "Bush tax cut" which I refuted with primary evidence (not from a think tank). Here is the claim:

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Bush destroyed the tax revenue flows that were in place when he took office
four years ago.

Now, we look at the truth (posted in response to the above assertion):

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

You might want to check your facts on that statement.

Either that, or tell us how you define "destroyed", because I do not think it means what you think it means.

For example:

Tax Revenue for 2001: Greater than any year Clinton was Prez except 2000 (not bad considering the recession)

Tax Revenue for 2002: Greater than any year Clinton was Prez except 2000.

Tax Revenue for 2003: Greater than Clinton years except 1999 and 2000.

All categories are on the rise and either meet or exceed revenues from Clinton's best years.

Now, if tax revenue was "destroyed", how can the numbers being increasing?

If you look at the data, you will see a dip after 2001 that trended upward for 2004. This would make sense once you factor in the economic impact of 9/11 and a recession (that started before Bush took office).
LINK

Host -

The previous assertions about Bush destroying tax revenues were made by you. I refuted it with the same exact evidence as I listed above--you never responded. In this case, I am repeating claims I have made here over and over again--I get tired of citing the same source when nobody bothers to reply.

Now, we have this comment:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Just like how Bush's tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy with new jobs

A simple check with U.S. Department of Labor proves this to be a false claim as well. LINK

NCB · 03-23-2005, 11:27 AM

Quote:

how much more do you want to take from a family of 4 that nets less than 29k/year

?

That's not going to help your argument. This family's AGI (if making 28,000per year) will be at 13, 900 before child deduction/credits and childcare tax credit. Thus, they will recieve the monies they paid into the system plus money they didn't pay into it because of the child tax credits.

You amke a very emotional argument, but unfortunatley, the facts get in the way and blow it out of the water

KMA-628 · 03-23-2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

From replies on here I can see that the right cares not about the problems that face the cities, states and even the nation but about their own wallets. Perhaps if we raised tarrifs and taxed companies that sent jobs overseas we would be able to build a tax base where the burdens could be shared equally..... But the Right refuses to allow or want to even discuss that.

Pan -

The "right" doesn't refuse to allow taxes, we try and keep them within limits. On one side you have people that want an incredible hike in taxes and on the other side you have people that want less taxes - this creates a balance. One side isn't getting their way over the other side as taxes have increased and decreased at the same time (just in different areas).

As for the problem you are specifically referring to, I have little sympathy for states that went nuts with their spending and got caught.....just as I will have no sympathy for the federal government when the same thing happens to them.

In the 90's, the states saw a boon in tax revenues, the numbers kept going up and up and up. They mistakenly assumed that this trend would continue, even when the experts were warning them otherwise.

Then, in 2000 and 2001 we got the double-whammy. A recession started and then 9/11 happened.

The states got caught with their pants down--the money wasn't flowing like it was before.

However, they weren't willing to tighten the belt and reduce spending, too many people/departments/etc got used to receiving all this money and didn't want to lose a penny so the states had two choices:

1) Reduce spending to within current revenue limits

-or-

2) Find other ways of getting more revenue

Which leads us to this problem that you are describing.

Believe me Pan, I know all to well what you and your state are going through. We have the same bullshit tax increases here that primarily effect the poor.

As I have said many times here, I do not see the level of taxes as the problem--I see the level of spending as the problem. If spending could be kept in check (at the federal/state/city levels), we would see a lot of these problems go away.

Now, are politicians going to voluntarily reduce spending? Nope. We have to force them to do it. They only way to do that is a spending cap placed on the government.

pan6467 · 03-23-2005, 11:38 AM

From my personal viewpoint, I can say beyond doubt that when and if my father dies before I do, my sister and I will inherit a lot of money but in ways my father set up so that thea least amount of taxes will be taken out (trust funds, land, life insurance policies (which are not taxed)... etc.)

However, I have already told my father that I don't believe in not paying my fair share, so I will pay taxes on whatever I am given, even if it means selling land, antiques and such for less than full value.

It's not that I am some saint or dreamer, it's just I love my country and will be more than happy to pay whatever I can to help her. Besides, in my mind inheritance to me is valueless as I would rather have the time with my father. Plus, I didn't work for it, he did. So even if I only recieved a penny and the rest goes to taxes, it is found money that cost me nothing. I would rather work for what I have anyway than be given it, because it means far, far more to me when my blood, sweat and tears went into it. I LIVED THAT RICH LIFE AND WAS GIVEN A LOT.... AND IT MADE ME COLD AND VALUELESS.

Too bad more people don't believe that way. So personally take all you want when I get it, it's the cost to protect my freedom and keep society moving forward.

stevo · 03-23-2005, 11:44 AM

kutulu - I'm looking at the charts you posted. Ok, the top 50% of wage earners collected 86% of all monies earned that year...ok. They still paid 96% of all income taxes. Wouldn't it be more fair if they paid only 86% of all income taxes? I'm missing your point completely on this one.

pan - By your statements, you understand that it is your hard work that earns your money. Its admirable that you are so adament about paying your fair share. The question is though, What is your opinion of a fair share? How much should the top wage earners pay, in your mind, in order to pay their fair share?

Willravel · 03-23-2005, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Be that as it may will, but the fact remains that it still puts you in at around the top 5%.

Of the country, yes. Locally, no. Locally I am somewhere between the top 37-43%. I'd call that middle class. The fact is that the cost of living adjusts it's self with the mean income in a given area. I spend around $3.05+ per gallon on gas when people elsewhere pay $1.50-2.00. I obviously pay a lot more for housing. The housing prices in my area rival Honk Kong and Manhattan, the most expensive in the world. While I'd love to try and use the money I make to help and balance the out of control war train we call a budget, I do have costs of living. High costs of living. If I did the same job I do here in, say, Arkansas, I would be making somewhere between $60-70k a year. Where does that put me? I'd say that's middle class. Remember that this equasion has a lot of variables, like adjusting for local inflation.

I spend my extra money on my daughters college fund and retirment. I haven't been on a vacation in 5 years. I have a modest home with modest amenities (30 inch tv, basic dish network, dial up internet, copmputer, and my reading chair). I'm not rich by American standards. If I had my income elsewhere, I might be, but that's not the case. I am not elsewhere.

host · 03-23-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

First, you should note that I have always taken issue with CBPP, anytime anyone has used them as a reference. They are hardly non-partisan and hardly accurate--see my past posts on them (i.e. SS threads).

Second, the irony in this is kinda funny.

In another thread, someone made outlandish claims about the "Bush tax cut" which I refuted with primary evidence (not from a think tank). Here is the claim:

Now, we look at the truth (posted in response to the above assertion):

Now, if tax revenue was "destroyed", how can the numbers being increasing?

If you look at the data, you will see a dip after 2001 that trended upward for 2004. This would make sense once you factor in the economic impact of 9/11 and a recession (that started before Bush took office).
LINK

Host -

The previous assertions about Bush destroying tax revenues were made by you. I refuted it with the same exact evidence as I listed above--you never responded. In this case, I am repeating claims I have made here over and over again--I get tired of citing the same source when nobody bothers to reply.

Now, we have this comment:

A simple check with U.S. Department of Labor proves this to be a false claim as well. LINK

KMA-628, your assertion that the CPBB is "Not non-partisan and hardly accurate", does not make it so:

Link to search results on the subjerct of CPBB accuracy:
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=FACT+CHECK+CBPP&btnG=Google+Search">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=FACT+CHECK+CBPP&btnG=Google+Search</a>

factcheck.org believes the CPBB to be independent:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=149">http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=149</a>
$400-billion Deficits for next 10 years?...................

.......However, the Kerry ad accurately quotes an independent source, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities . The CBPP predicts deficits exceeding $400 billion in each of the next 10 years if Congress makes Bush’s tax cuts permanent, enacts relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax before it affects many more middle-income taxpayers, and increases defense spending, all of which the CBPP deems likely to happen.

The CPBB was also accurate in the report referred to in the above quote box:
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/1-28-04bud.htm">http://www.cbpp.org/1-28-04bud.htm</a>

KMA, please link the actual posts where you dispute CPBB items, and I will gladly debate them with you.

The CBO link that you posted shows federal revenue down and
income tax at it's lowest percentage of GDP in many years,
7 percent vs. 10 percent in 2000. The federal revenue figures reinforce that recession did not start until 2001, and march 2001 seems to be the official "date of record" that most economists point to as the start date of the recession.

pan6467 · 03-23-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

pan - By your statements, you understand that it is your hard work that earns your money. Its admirable that you are so adament about paying your fair share. The question is though, What is your opinion of a fair share? How much should the top wage earners pay, in your mind, in order to pay their fair share?

In my opinion? I believe a flat tax of 17-20% with deductions only for families WITH CHILDREN that make under $100,000, and for families without children $30,000.

No loopholes, no deducting interest rates (nice scam but it allows people like my father who owns several properties a nice cut in and of itself).

I also believe if we make it 20% that 3% goes to pay down the debt and by constitutional law can only be used for that purpose. And once the debt is paid down the tax drops to the straight 17% (that's the number I have heard bandied about a lot in public debate).

I also believe that Capital Gains taxes, luxury taxes and estate taxes should go up also.

kutulu · 03-23-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

?

That's not going to help your argument. This family's AGI (if making 28,000per year) will be at 13,900 before child deduction/credits and childcare tax credit. Thus, they will recieve the monies they paid into the system plus money they didn't pay into it because of the child tax credits.

You amke a very emotional argument, but unfortunatley, the facts get in the way and blow it out of the water

What 'facts' are blowing that out of the water? I've posted their contribution, all you've posted is anectodatal crap. Post numbers if you have them

kutulu · 03-23-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

kutulu - I'm looking at the charts you posted. Ok, the top 50% of wage earners collected 86% of all monies earned that year...ok. They still paid 96% of all income taxes. Wouldn't it be more fair if they paid only 86% of all income taxes?

No, it wouldn't. Doing so would require everyone except the top 5% to have a substantial increase in taxes. The people in the bottom 50% alone would be looking at being taxed at a rate of at least 4 times their current rate. Why should we raise taxes on 90% of America so that the top 5% can get a tax break.

Life isn't fair. Period. Although it may be fair that the top 5% pay taxes at a disproportionate rate when compared to their income it's also not fair that people in the bottom 50% work just as hard and don't have health insurance or anything beyond the most basic needs (if even that much).

Like I said before, the top 5% are the ones who set the wages for the virtually all of the employees of the country. Their tax burden could be less if they chose to pay people a wage that realistically allows them to cover all their basic needs and health care.

Hardknock · 03-23-2005, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

First, you should note that I have always taken issue with CBPP, anytime anyone has used them as a reference. They are hardly non-partisan and hardly accurate--see my past posts on them (i.e. SS threads).

Second, the irony in this is kinda funny.

In another thread, someone made outlandish claims about the "Bush tax cut" which I refuted with primary evidence (not from a think tank). Here is the claim:

Now, we look at the truth (posted in response to the above assertion):

Now, if tax revenue was "destroyed", how can the numbers being increasing?

If you look at the data, you will see a dip after 2001 that trended upward for 2004. This would make sense once you factor in the economic impact of 9/11 and a recession (that started before Bush took office).
LINK

Host -

The previous assertions about Bush destroying tax revenues were made by you. I refuted it with the same exact evidence as I listed above--you never responded. In this case, I am repeating claims I have made here over and over again--I get tired of citing the same source when nobody bothers to reply.

Now, we have this comment:

A simple check with U.S. Department of Labor proves this to be a false claim as well. LINK

That's fine but we all know about the outsourcing and wage reductions that have been going on for the last few years. There may be more jobs but if they all pay peanuts then how is that supposed to stimulate the economy?

KMA-628 · 03-23-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

KMA, please link the actual posts where you dispute CPBB items, and I will gladly debate them with you.

How about if I just use yours?

Quote: "The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"

For example, one of their recommendations for SS solvency is to cut benefits. I discussed this in a different thread, where I talked about my dislike for the CBPP; a thread you were involved in. I am very conservative in my economic thinking and even I think we can do something about SS that doesn't involve cutting benefits

They are a liberal think tank.

I have a problem with some of their ideas just as you would have if I posted something from Heritage or Cato.

Nothing real complex here, they just view things differently than I do.

Also, your link from FactCheck correctly labeled them as "liberal" which removes any doubt in my mind if they are partisan or not.

Lastly, you statement said that tax revenue was "destroyed" which is hardly the case. When revenue goes up, it can hardly be described as "destroyed". Now, if you want to discuss tax revenue compare to GDP, I am fine with that, however, you will also have to include a lot of other information into your argument that you may not want to consider.

If you meant tax revenue was "destroyed" as compared to GDP than you should have said it, not added the thought later. Plus, even if you compare tax revenue to GDP I hardly think the word "destroy" could factor in as an adjective.

NCB · 03-23-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

What 'facts' are blowing that out of the water? I've posted their contribution, all you've posted is anectodatal crap. Post numbers if you have them

If you're at all vaguely familar with taxes and deductions, you will realize that your family of four making 28,000 does not pay taxes in the end. In fact, April 15th for these people is more like December 25th because of what they get back. It's govt hand out day, not tax day for them.

.

kutulu · 03-23-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

If you're at all vaguely familar with taxes and deductions, you will realize that your family of four making 28,000 does not pay taxes in the end. In fact, April 15th for these people is more like December 25th because of what they get back. It's govt hand out day, not tax day for them.

Unless you can cite a sample tax return your 'facts' are meaningless. I understand how deductions and exceptions work but as far as I'm aware you don't get back more than everything you put in over the course of the year (meaning if a person's total tax ends up at $0 and they had $1,000 taken out over the course of the year they aren't getting a check for $2,000. But that's beside the point...

You are focusing on details and missing the big picture because you cannot support an arguement that people in the bottom 50% have the means available to pay the increase in taxes necessary for a flat tax rate. Neither do most of the people in outside of the top 10% for that matter.

Keep in mind that the bottom 50% is a broad catagory. It ranges from teachers (some with Masters Degrees) all the way down to the person who works 1 day a week to get out of the house. The facts do indeed show that the bottom 50% DO pay taxes. They just don't pay them at a rate that you deem 'fair'

The fact is that you are suggesting that 90% of the country should pay more so that the top 5% can lessen their tax burden and so far you have refused to say why that is justified outside of 'it's not fair'.

KMA-628 · 03-23-2005, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Unless you can cite a sample tax return your 'facts' are meaningless.

Kutulu -

My wife is making up a hypothetical return in a few minutes (she is a tax accountant) and I will pass it on when I get a chance.

Basically: Married filed Jointly gets EIC if their income is under $35,458. Then, you add in the standard deductions, the kid deductions and you will see that the hypothetical family of four will get back more than they paid.

That doesn't count additional deductions, i.e. if they own a house, etc.

Basically, as you go down the income ladder from $35K the less you pay in taxes and the more you get back.

Kinda hard to cite sources since this is all under IRS rules, that is why she (my wife) is using her tax software to make a hypothetical return based on $30K, average withholding, etc.

The burden really isn't in the $35K and under, it is the $35K to $115K range. That is the range, in my opinion, that feels it the most come 4/15.

kutulu · 03-23-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Kutulu -

My wife is making up a hypothetical return in a few minutes (she is a tax accountant) and I will pass it on when I get a chance.

Basically: Married filed Jointly gets EIC if their income is under $35,458. Then, you add in the standard deductions, the kid deductions and you will see that the hypothetical family of four will get back more than they paid.

That doesn't count additional deductions, i.e. if they own a house, etc.

Basically, as you go down the income ladder from $35K the less you pay in taxes and the more you get back.

Kinda hard to cite sources since this is all under IRS rules, that is why she (my wife) is using her tax software to make a hypothetical return based on $30K, average withholding, etc.

The burden really isn't in the $35K and under, it is the $35K to $115K range. That is the range, in my opinion, that feels it the most come 4/15.

Have fun with it. I've never qualified for the EIC so I really don't know much about it.

I agree that it's the $35 - $115k range that is hurt the most but original complaint was about the <$29k and their 'free ride.' The people between 35-115 make up 40% of the population and even then they pay less than what a flat tax rate would require.

03-22-2005, 02:44 PM	#1 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	1 of the truths about tax cuts: Ok, so I'm listening to Mike Trivisonno on Cleveland's WTAM 1100 AM and he has on a rep. fro Miller Brewing talking about how Ohio plans to double the excise tax on beer. Right now Ohio pays 18 cents a gallon, Penn. pays 8, Ky. pays 8, Ind. pays 12. This rep implied heavily (saying it in just about any possible way without saying it onb a CC radio station) that the taxes are Ohio's (please note, Gov. taft is a Rep. as is the Ohio house) way to make up for tax cuts. He also stated: - that it would hurt the 55% of Ohioans that buy beer, because they make less than 45,000. So the poor do pay for the tax cuts...... - that it Miller would probably shut down it's Ohio brewery (costing 600 jobs) - that it would affect the suppliers, the building contractors who were going to add onto the facility - that they project more people would buy cheaper beer and end up costing Ohio tax money because the cheaper beers cost less thus are taxed less - that Ohio already has a state minimum on beer of 25% over cost, 1/2 of which goes to the state as an added tax. What people don't see is that these income tax cuts that Bush and the GOP give to the rich, are killing the states and cities who have to raise their taxes, in hidden ways, that affect the lower classes far more than the uppers. Plus, as Bush's deficit spending continues to grow out of control.... those cuts aren't cuts in spending. I"m sure the GOP will fight this by saying well the poor need to drink less.... or whatever, blaming the lower classes for this instead of sucking it up and paying their fair share. Instead, they'll cry about how taxes are still to high for them. Well when the deficit comes to a head and we have to start paying it.... guess what the rich will be paying far far more than they ever imagined because as jobs get outsourced, as wages decline and factories close.... the rich will be the only tax base that can pay. Instead of working for tax cuts work on a solution to increase the tax base fairly. Maybe it will require sacrifice from the rich and lower classes but it's far better than the course we are on now. __________________ 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?"

03-22-2005, 05:06 PM	#6 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	Sin taxes suck because they are usually proposed by someone who "hates" your sin but loves their own... The Lottery as a tax...Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci

03-22-2005, 05:13 PM	#7 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	the claim that raising the beer tax is to make up for the tax cuts smacks of the fallacy of a false cause. After this therefore because of this......That way the Rep and/or the legislature can avoid blame for any of their decisions. The rep is engaging in scare tactics in order to protect his interest...the things he says may or not be true but he certainly has something to lose if taxes increase. __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci

03-23-2005, 09:20 AM	#13 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I personally don't drink beer and rarely drink alcohol at all..... (turns into a semi-formaldahyde in your body and depletes your seratonin). But there are many that do and to punish them for doing so, so that we may have a President who runs deeper red ink than ever before cut taxes on the rich is pathetic and unjust. Where are the capital gains taxes? Where are raising tarriffs? Where is an inheritance tax? Why tax those who can not afford to be taxed more when they choose to try to enjoy themselves a little? While the upper echelons (and I'm not talking anyone making less than a million), keep getting their taxes cut? From replies on here I can see that the right cares not about the problems that face the cities, states and even the nation but about their own wallets. Perhaps if we raised tarrifs and taxed companies that sent jobs overseas we would be able to build a tax base where the burdens could be shared equally..... But the Right refuses to allow or want to even discuss that. They would rather tax the beer and the alcohol and items that the lower classes on average spend more on, than to set a flat income tax or tax lurury items or have an inheritance tax. As Pink Floyd sang: Money, get away. Get a good job with good pay and you're okay. Money, it's a gas. Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. New car, caviar, four star daydream, Think I'll buy me a football team. Money, get back. I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack. Money, it's a hit. Don't give me that do goody good bullshit. I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set And I think I need a Lear jet. Money, it's a crime. Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie. Money, so they say Is the root of all evil today. But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're giving none away. __________________ 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?"

03-23-2005, 09:48 AM	#15 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Did I say that or did I say the upper echelons that make over a million the very top .05% that pay what the wipe their arses with? If my dad makes $5 million and pays under $2.5 million in taxes (state, local and Federal) and still drives a Porsche, a Range Rover, 2 Benzes, has a time share in Fire Island and takes 3 or 4 trips a year to Jamaica and the Carribean, has season tickets to the Indians and belongs to Muirfield Village Golf Course, and his taxes keep getting cut, while my wife and I barely make $30,000 and with taxes we pay about $5,000 and the hidden sales taxes keep going up, who misses the money the most? And no it's not a slam on my father, it's a totally realistic question. Even he believes he doesn't pay his fair share, he sees that his tax cuts are being paid for by his children who barely make livings. So to use that tired cliche that the upper 50% pay more than the poor is tripe because the poor pay far more than they can afford. __________________ 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?"

03-22-2005, 03:51 PM	#2 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	You know the great thing about sin taxes? If you dont like them you dont have to pay them. That's right, you dont have to pay sin taxes. Just like I dont pay for the taxes known as the lottery. It's a choice, thus there is nothing "unfair" about it. And yes, increased taxes hurt business thus jobs. Guess what... that's why Bush cut them.

03-23-2005, 11:01 AM	#21 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Be that as it may will, but the fact remains that it still puts you in at around the top 5%.

03-23-2005, 11:38 AM	#28 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	From my personal viewpoint, I can say beyond doubt that when and if my father dies before I do, my sister and I will inherit a lot of money but in ways my father set up so that thea least amount of taxes will be taken out (trust funds, land, life insurance policies (which are not taxed)... etc.) However, I have already told my father that I don't believe in not paying my fair share, so I will pay taxes on whatever I am given, even if it means selling land, antiques and such for less than full value. It's not that I am some saint or dreamer, it's just I love my country and will be more than happy to pay whatever I can to help her. Besides, in my mind inheritance to me is valueless as I would rather have the time with my father. Plus, I didn't work for it, he did. So even if I only recieved a penny and the rest goes to taxes, it is found money that cost me nothing. I would rather work for what I have anyway than be given it, because it means far, far more to me when my blood, sweat and tears went into it. I LIVED THAT RICH LIFE AND WAS GIVEN A LOT.... AND IT MADE ME COLD AND VALUELESS. Too bad more people don't believe that way. So personally take all you want when I get it, it's the cost to protect my freedom and keep society moving forward. __________________ 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?"

03-23-2005, 11:44 AM	#29 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	kutulu - I'm looking at the charts you posted. Ok, the top 50% of wage earners collected 86% of all monies earned that year...ok. They still paid 96% of all income taxes. Wouldn't it be more fair if they paid only 86% of all income taxes? I'm missing your point completely on this one. pan - By your statements, you understand that it is your hard work that earns your money. Its admirable that you are so adament about paying your fair share. The question is though, What is your opinion of a fair share? How much should the top wage earners pay, in your mind, in order to pay their fair share? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser Last edited by stevo; 03-23-2005 at 11:49 AM..