"What Bush has done - and many seem all to ready to buy into - is mask a huge windfall to the rich - in the garb of help for the little guy. Unless you are filthy rich (God bless you if you are) you should be outraged at this deceit. Bush is doing nothing more than exploiting the misery of millions of Americans for the benefit of the very few rich. " I hear this all the time, but I see no one backing these claims with numbers. Here are my personal facts. Im considered RICH by the dems. So they want to tax the hell out of me. Im already paying a disproportionately high tax rate compared to lower income people. So please explain how this is a tax cut for the top .01% of people. Without some serious numbers backing your claims you sound like a democratic parrot. Wheres the beef? I'm seeing tax cuts for TAX PAYERS. The extreme poor dont pay taxes. This is warped by the democrats into "tax cuts for the rich". I aint buying it. What "wind fall" can I expect from the Bush plan? Please point it out to me, because I just dont see it. Maybe i'm not rich enough. In the year 2000, the top 10% of wage earners paid 67.3% of the taxes. Hey, thats me dammit! Tax me one more penny and im going postal. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%. Yeah...thats fair. peace axeman
Yeah, it IS fair. See, the wealth of that top 10, or 1 or .5% didn't just magically appear out of thin air; it was the fact that they live in a society which ENABLED to them earn it in the first place. The tax, in my view of the world, is your way of giving back to the society that made it possible for you to get where you are.
That is truly absurd. The top 1% got where they are because they put the work and effort in. Because THEY made the right decisions, which their peers did not make. Following your logic, a world class olympic athlete should give a percentage of his trophies to the LOSERS because they all competed in the same competitive environment. The fact is, if you take possesions away from people who EARNED them, and give them to people who did NOT earn them, its called THEFT. Pure and simple. Maybe if you had started poor, and fought and clawed your way to a better life, you would think differently. My friends father started broke in this country when he immigrated here. Worked 12-14 hour days, 7 days a week for decades. Raised a large family, and became wealthy at the same time. Please tell me why its FAIR to take his blood and sweat and give it to the person, who sat on his ass, and didn't work 1/5th as hard as him. This is outrageous. Do you have any concept of property rights? peace axeman
I don't follow, are you saying the country with all the ass-kicking driven types is going to be the EASIEST place to make money??? I'll bet you the easiest place to make money is in (1) or (2) or (3). So long as you are a politician.
Firstly, the top 1%, or richest of the rich, got where they are because either: their forefathers got them there; they exploited political connections; they exploited a captive market; they got lucky. Getting to this level simply because of "work and effort" is very much the American Myth, rather than the American Dream. Now, why is it fair to take more the more money one earns? Well, I guess if you see the life in a particular political state (the USA, for ex) as a collection of individuals all going about their thing, then yeah, I suppose it does seem unfair. But if, like me, you see it as living as part of a society, where, while protecting the rights of the individual, the efforts of the individual benefit not only the said individual, but the entire society; and benefit it in such a way that the better off one is, the more he is able to contribute. To me, there could be nothing fairer than asking individuals to contribute on the basis of their ability to do so. Now note, that doesn't involve sucking the individual dry, far from it. He that is willing to work harder, to educate himself, to risk his time, his capital, is STILL rewarded for those efforts; he can still live (much) better than the average Joe.
You're not rich enough. Listen - I have cut more 6 figure checks to the IRS than I care to think about. I founded and ran a small company employing as many as 60 people at one point, before selling it to a larger company. I know from taxes and small business. You get no sympathy from me. Unlike you, I recognize that the taxes I pay go directly and indirectly to create and sustain the systems of laws & banking, and to provide civic infrastructure that makes opening and growing a business possible in the first place. Don't believe me? - go to Russia and try to set up shop. I've done that too. I know of what I speak. You want "facts" ? Here are a few to swallow: The Wall Street Journal estimates that the Bush package could inject $80 billion-$100 billion into the economy in the first yearâless than 1 percent of GNP. That's nice, but on its own it hardly makes the difference between a job-losing economy like the one we have today and a job-creating economy like the one we had in the '90s. Bush's plan to scrap taxes on dividends would go to the 1 percent of the population whose incomes top $1 million. The plan has been promoted a benefit to the elderly, but in fact, only 6 percent of the elderly with incomes under $50,000 get anything out of it. Taxpayers who earn $35,000 or less come away with $27 more a year. The Tax cuts are unsustainable without contributing massively to an already massive Federal deficit and ensure an interest rate rise in the not to distant future. "If you get significant increases in deficits that produce a rise in interest rates, you will be significantly undercutting the benefits derived from the tax cuts," Greenspan said recently. Budget deficits reduce the country's national saving, which reduces the assets owned by Americans and so reduces our future national income. An eventual raise rates by about than half a percentage point would increase payments by about $700 a year on a $150,000 mortgage.
Quote from alfonso: Firstly, the top 1%, or richest of the rich, got where they are because either: their forefathers got them there; they exploited political connections; they exploited a captive market; they got lucky. Getting to this level simply because of "work and effort" is very much the American Myth, rather than the American Dream. # Bullshit. Nothing but empty assertions. # Although im not in the top 1%, I didnt get where I am # because I inherited anything, or exploited anyone. Now, why is it fair to take more the more money one earns? Well, I guess if you see the life in a particular political state (the USA, for ex) as a collection of individuals all going about their thing, then yeah, I suppose it does seem unfair. But if, like me, you see it as living as part of a society, where, while protecting the rights of the individual, # Hold it right there. You clearly dont give a damn about # protecting inidividul rights, or you would protect their # property rights and not steal their property to give # it to someone who didn't earn it. the efforts of the individual benefit not only the said individual, but the entire society; and benefit it in such a way that the better off one is, the more he is able to contribute. To me, there could be nothing fairer than asking individuals to contribute on the basis of their ability to do so. # This is precisely where we philosophically disagree. # Your last statement is as unamerican as you can get. # Our founding fathers would vomit on you for making # a statement like that. There is nothing MORE unfair # than asking individuals to contribute on their ability # to do so. This is equivalent to saying its ok to ROB # you simply BECAUSE you are wealthy. # You simply have a hatred for the rich or something? # Do you feel bad about yourself because you came # from a wealthy familiy? Now note, that doesn't involve sucking the individual dry, far from it. # Talking over half your money isnt sucking an individual dry? # How about 60%? How about 70%? Crazy. He that is willing to work harder, to educate himself, to risk his time, his capital, is STILL rewarded for those efforts; he can still live (much) better than the average Joe. # Oh I see.... working 10X harder for 2x the benefit is fair? # You are not making any sense at all. # Nothing you said is remotely similar to "fair". Stop pretending. # Why do I not deserve the same treatement as someone who # earns less than me? What crime did I commit to deserve this # unfair tax treatement???? Well??? # peace # axeman
Nice stats but I still see no " wind fall". "Don't believe me? - go to Russia and try to set up shop. I've done that too. I know of what I speak. " This is the same tired argument. Things are worse elsewhere, so they must be OK here. "Bush's plan to scrap taxes on dividends would go to the 1 percent of the population whose incomes top $1 million." The truth is, the dividend cut goes to anyone who owns stock. That is, investors! Obviously, the rich tend to have more invested than someone with less money than they have. But that does not make it unfair in any way. Should we make it illegal for the rich to invest? Everyone should have an equal opportunity to invest and should be treated equally when they do. Now THATS fair. "Taxpayers who earn $35,000 or less come away with $27 more a year." Whats your point? That people who dont pay taxes wont get a tax break? Duh. State the obvious. This is a meaningless statement. I agree about the deficit spending. The Rebs are morons in this aspect. ( As well as others not related to this thread, like freedom of thought! ) peace axeman
# Bullshit. Nothing but empty assertions. # Although im not in the top 1%, I didnt get where I am # because I inherited anything, or exploited anyone. Well, that's the point. I wasn't talking about YOU, I was, as I quite specifically stated, referring to the richest of the rich. And those are certainly not "empty assertions", but you can believe it if helps you. # Hold it right there. You clearly dont give a damn about # protecting inidividul rights, or you would protect their # property rights and not steal their property to give # it to someone who didn't earn it. Property rights are essential. But your claim on such property doesn't take (full) effect until taxes are paid. Pretty simple. Obviously there is a world of difference between that and not giving a damn. Now, about giving to those who "didn't earn it", firstly let me say that obviously not all taxes are simply used redistribute income. Ie, it's not just a matter of taxing the rich and giving to the poor. They are used to build and maintain the legal, civic, financial, defence etc infrastructures that are absolutely essential to a functional society; a society that makes it possible for you to put in your hard work and efforts and be rewarded for it. As for the transfer payments part of it, well, I can't answer that without delving into theories of what a State ought to do. Like I said, if your philosophical predisposition is to see life as nothing more than a race between individuals to grab what they can for themselves; if you can't think of any reason to care about other people besides yourself and the ones you know, ie strangers, then I'm not really sure there's anything I can say that would convince you that transfer payments that provide social security for a citizenry are a good idea. the efforts of the individual benefit not only the said individual, but the entire society; and benefit it in such a way that the better off one is, the more he is able to contribute. To me, there could be nothing fairer than asking individuals to contribute on the basis of their ability to do so. # This is precisely where we philosophically disagree. # Your last statement is as unamerican as you can get. # Our founding fathers would vomit on you for making # a statement like that. There is nothing MORE unfair # than asking individuals to contribute on their ability # to do so. Well, I'm not an American, so I'm not particularly concerned with what your Founding Fathers might have thought. All I would say is that, if your views are representative of theirs, then the hallowed Fathers were wrong. Because I just don't understand how you can possibly achieve "life, liberty and happiness" if you have broke masses unable to feed themselves, receive basic medical attention or participate in the highest echelons of (democratic) civic administration. You call it "robbery", I call it "the cost of living in society". Again, it's a philosphical difference; I don't see how you can possibly claim any moral superiority. # Talking over half your money isnt sucking an individual dry? # How about 60%? How about 70%? Crazy. Are the efforts rewarded? Are you still able to improve -- significantly improve -- the condition of your life? Is there still a surplus of value left for you? Obviously yes. See, I don't consider it "your" money until the taxes are paid. I just don't see it that way.
People who earn $35,000 or less per year DO pay taxes and your suggestion that they don't or that the amount is somehow inconsequential is wrong, sickeningly arrogant and elitist. In fact people who earn that kind of money give a vastly greater percentage of it to the Federal State and Local government than the few who earn six figures or more. taxation is levied in many forms that disproportionately burden lower income Americans - sales tax, payroll tax, taxes attached to certain goods and services such as gasoline and telecommunications. Why don't we hear the "compassionate conservatives" talking about relieving this unjust burden to put "cash back into the hands of people who will spend it."? And no it's not "dumb argument" that the lack of tax-dollar financed infrastructure (legal, banking, highway-transportation, telecommunications, air-traffic control, rail, shipping ports, etc..) are all ESSENTIAL and REQUIRED elements of a successful free-market economy - and they do not materialize and endure magically. It is in fact a critical. And I do not subscribe to your lowest-common-denominator argument, rather it is your lack of understanding or appreciation of these realities that led to my suggestion that you might find some new-found appreciation of them were they suddenly unavailable to you. And no - the dividend tax break does NOT benefit all investors. It benefits only those investors who hold dividend paying stocks - and more so those who own very large quantities of such stocks and other specially designated securities. In fact ordinary investors are likely to see very little in real dollar benefit - because so firms pay dividend on common stock anymore (that may or may not change). However those like Bush Treasury Secretary John Snow - who has vast holdings of USX (the rail company) stock who stands to avoid paying over a quarter million dollars a year in dividend taxes - on stock he obtained from a company that has received Billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidized bail-outs - and operates on tax-payer subsidized rail network! Now - since I've been generous and answered your question in detail perhaps you can answer one for me? How does a tax relief program that encourages both large corporations (dividend tax cuts) and small businesses (remember all those job creators) to disperse more of their earnings in "tax-relieved" pay-outs to shareholders and owners (rather than to reinvest it in capital and payroll expansion) create more jobs - or put money into the hands of those most likely to spend it?