Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 3rd July 2003, 15:54   #1
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Bush Economic Stimulus Program Working... if you're Rich!

Today's economic news reveals an unexpected upward surge in unemployment- even as the stock market is rallying. Wasn't the big tax cut supposed to create jobs? BTW, did you know that while the Republicans in Congress were passing the rich-favoring tax cut they were raising taxes on gasoline for everyone?
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2003, 18:10   #2
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
I just have one thing to say. The President, contrary to popular belief has very little impact on the economy. Greenspan has more power than he does. The President can try to impact the economy and sometimes it works, but usually it doesn't. And before you say, Bill Clinton had very little to do with the good economy while he was in office. This is because work on the economy does not have an immediate effect. It can take years (up to a decade or more) for an effect to show up. The good economy during Clinton's years was do to the hard work of others in the 80's and early 90's. Also, any help that Bush maybe attempting to give possibly could not show until 2013 or later. So stop bashing him because isn't doing enough for the economy. Next, learn more about how the economy works.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2003, 18:47   #3
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
I agree completely. So why were huge tax breaks for the rich sold and resold as "stimulus"?

If I were to take Bush at his word I would have to conclude that he was pursuing the cuts in the hope of influencing the economy. Fortunately, I know better than to take Bush at his word.

Really, I agree with everything you say... but none of it is what he was telling us. This was going to get America moving again-- and I don't remember him using the 2013 date. Of course, one segment of the economy has been affected immediately, and that's campaign contributions. Have you noticed how Bush has been raking it in? Don't tell me I don't know how the economy works.

Last edited by spiderbaby1958; 5th July 2003 at 19:22.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2003, 00:38   #4
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
I agree completely. So why were huge tax breaks for the rich sold and resold as "stimulus"?

If I were to take Bush at his word I would have to conclude that he was pursuing the cuts in the hope of influencing the economy. Fortunately, I know better than to take Bush at his word.

Really, I agree with everything you say... but none of it is what he was telling us. This was going to get America moving again-- and I don't remember him using the 2013 date. Of course, one segment of the economy has been affected immediately, and that's campaign contributions. Have you noticed how Bush has been raking it in? Don't tell me I don't know how the economy works.
Well, from your first post, it sounds like you want stuff right now. And as I recall, Bush didn't give an exact date did he? And did it ever occur to you that he maybe raking in the cash because he's popular. OH NO! That can't be it, how could such a "bad" president be popular. And you must be right, Bush is just one big lying sack of crap. Please, you can't tell me that with a straight face while telling me that Clinton wasn't. The tax cuts are based upon how much a person pays in taxes. If you pay $100 dollars in federal taxes annually, you will get more back than someone who pays $50 annually.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2003, 03:49   #5
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Aww! I didn't get to read that one cause I had already added you to my ignore list! I'm like, so bummed about that, Dude!
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2003, 04:25   #6
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Actually, because of some education benefits that Bush put in place a while back I got a HUGE tax return this year, so I invested in the stock market. Thank you Mr. Bush.

I am a college student and I make less than $20,000 a year. If you're in a tax bracket that does not pay taxes, don't bitch when an income tax break doesn't lower your non-existant taxes.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2003, 04:39   #7
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
Aww! I didn't get to read that one cause I had already added you to my ignore list! I'm like, so bummed about that, Dude!
Well thats his lose. It also shows his lack of intelligence...or fear of losing an argument. Man, I have never seen a more ignorant responce. Wow, that is really one of the least intelligent responces I have ever read. Well, that means I win.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2003, 05:12   #8
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Yeah it's pretty sad that he would rather ignore you completely than take an objective look at the arguments presented. But if he's not willing to even read your arguments then I guess it's not worth wasting any energy about it. He's made up his mind to stay in his own little world where he is always right about absolutely everything and any differing viewpoints will be ridiculed/ignored regardless of how much logical sense they might make.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2003, 18:43   #9
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
The working poor pay FICA taxes which are pretty constant and significant, and which no seems to want to pay attention to, and nearly everyone pays gasoline tax which (as I said before) the Republicans have just raised BUT the point of this is supposed to be, that none of this is going to create any jobs-- at least, as Tiger helpfully pointed out, until 2013 or so.

I would like to have seen that money go to the States. Every state in the nation right now is faced with the choice between raising taxes and throwing people (e.g. teachers) out of work.

The thing you have to understand about Tiger is that I talked myself blue in the face with him on another thread. (Bashing America) He just doesn't argue fair. Everytime you pin him down, he makes the argument about something else-- and he doesn't even seem to read what I wrote.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th July 2003, 18:53   #10
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Just for the record. I did read, in entirety, everything that he wrote. He just has trouble accepting the fact that someone disagrees with him and is willing to confront him on the matter. And for the record, let it be known that I did not change the subject. I just answered all his arguments.

Oh, all the working people in this country pay FICA taxes...not just the poor.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2003, 03:41   #11
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
I don't have a problem with sales tax on gasoline or on anything for that matter. In fact I think that income tax should be abolished completely and all tax revenue should be gained from sales tax.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2003, 04:23   #12
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Well, I certainly don't share that opinion, but if you'd like to elaborate, I'd be interested.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2003, 04:49   #13
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
A few states already do this, there is no state income tax and a higher sales tax percentage but it's not that much higher. In this system, people are all taxed proportionately by how much they spend instead of how much they earn. It's a much simpler idea if you ask me, no more figureing out exepmtions and tips and all that crap. Also people who run illegal businesses and don't file would still pay tax just like everyone else under this system.

Of course switching to this system would probably hurt the economy because you'd end up having to can half of the IRS and also businesses that specalize in doing tax returns for people would also be screwed.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2003, 09:41   #14
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
Ok, first of all I do not beleve that Bill Gates needs a tax cut. This is exactly what Bush's plan does. It gives the rich a tax break. Why is he doing it? This is his theory: If you give the rich a tax break, they will use that money to re-invest in the economy. The rich guy will buy machinery and crap for his company, investing in himself/big corp that he owns, thus creating more jobs, bringing demand. Bush's theory is WRONG. Can you imagine a rich guy "helping boost the economy" with the small percentage of money the government gave back to him?

Here's my theory:
When money is hard to come by, people start saving. When people start saving, no money is being ciruclated into the economy, when no one is spending, there is no demand because people refuse to spend their money. And no demand = layoffs. Am I right?

The right way to stimulate the economy is to give the spenders money. The spenders are the people who create demand. Vendors (rich) dont create demand, people do. The majority of spenders are not rich.

Heh, did you guys know that Jr. Bush broke the record for largest deposit (7 Trillion?), and what's more interesting is that Daddy Bush held the last record. That's something to ponder about.
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2003, 13:05   #15
ase500
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 8
I agree

I have been saying the same thing for years. The only way to better the Economy is to better the Working class and poor, because they are the ones that buy from retail outlets and spend money. For instance I am A local Computer Maker, If the poor and middle class are doing well my Systems sell like hot cakes, if they are not systems may sit on the shelf and cost me a bit of money in the end. Bill Gates and other Wealthy are not the ones in my store. It is more likely as well that people like Bill Gates are going to get a discount from a large PC maker then the Poor Or Middle Class, because his is who he is. Also remember all the money the US government prints didn't just vanish, its there, somewhere. Its in someones pocket, and if its not the poor, or middle class that only leaves one set of people, the Wealthy. You see Bad economy means that the rich keep the money. Good economy means they have to pass it around, after all thats what an economy is.
ase500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2003, 14:29   #16
DracoVulpine
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: That place...y'know...over there
Posts: 31
Income and sales taxes?

Ahem...dare I point out that New Hampshire has neither State Income NOR Sales taxes...is only at 3.9% for unemployment and is in the top six rated states for per capita income? Other taxes take up the slack...like alcohol and property taxes.

One of the few states that doesn't tax what you earn and then tax what you spend as well.

And yes...the Bush tax cuts gave the most benefit to the rich. They got a higher percentage cut to their income tax. Which adds up when your income is huge to begin with. Say you make 50K a year and get the 2% cut. 1k less you have to pay. But...say you make 1 million...and get the higher 3%ish cut...30K less you have to pay.

Only way this turns out to be nice for us low incomers is if we get lucky and win the lottery.
DracoVulpine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2003, 14:33   #17
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by tiger84
If you pay $100 dollars in federal taxes annually, you will get more back than someone who pays $50 annually.
the problem is that it's disproportionate. you'd think a "fair" tax cut would be to cut 10% of everyone's taxes, or something, but the point is that the rich are having far more (percentage-wise) cut. i don't know exact figures, however.

and spiderbaby1958, ignoring people who disagree with you is not the most direct route to intelligent debate

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2003, 16:18   #18
spiderbaby1958
Major Dude
 
spiderbaby1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
and spiderbaby1958, ignoring people who disagree with you is not the most direct route to intelligent debate
I do NOT ignore people who disagree with me. I refer you the Bash America thread.

This guy (am I assuming male gender?) attacked me with dumb sarcasm that really annoyed me without reading my posts carefully enough to see that I had been careful to not say what he accused me of saying. Then, when I carefully went over the same ground twice, he simply shifted the terms of the argument into something else.

So far I have put three people on my ignore list, in three different forums, and it is always because I feel that 1)I am putting a lot more thought and effort into the debate than the other person, 2) the other person, in my opinion, is unwilling or unable to be consistent and logical enough to make intelligent debate possible, 3)the person doesn't appear to be reading my posts carefully, and 4)the person is being a dick.

I suppose that disagreement is a prerequisite for these conditions, but I wouldn't be spending all this time posting my opinion in forums if I didn't find a good arguement engaging and entertaining. I back away from a bad arguement.
spiderbaby1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2003, 20:40   #19
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
I do NOT ignore people who disagree with me. I refer you the Bash America thread.

This guy (am I assuming male gender?) attacked me with dumb sarcasm that really annoyed me without reading my posts carefully enough to see that I had been careful to not say what he accused me of saying. Then, when I carefully went over the same ground twice, he simply shifted the terms of the argument into something else.

So far I have put three people on my ignore list, in three different forums, and it is always because I feel that 1)I am putting a lot more thought and effort into the debate than the other person, 2) the other person, in my opinion, is unwilling or unable to be consistent and logical enough to make intelligent debate possible, 3)the person doesn't appear to be reading my posts carefully, and 4)the person is being a dick.

I suppose that disagreement is a prerequisite for these conditions, but I wouldn't be spending all this time posting my opinion in forums if I didn't find a good arguement engaging and entertaining. I back away from a bad arguement.
Quick translation:
"I am egotistical and when someone does make sense with his/her arguments and I cannot counter them, I accuse them of being stupid, illogical, and ignorant. I do not recognize the strategy of divide and conqure because why would anyone clearly delineate all of my arguments and counter them one at a time. That simply makes it too easy for them."

Okay, I'm done...I've had my fun, and boy is this fun. And the sad thing is I'm not being sarcastic.

Anyway, back to the argument at hand:
I think the economical benefits as Bush sees it, are secondary. I think his primary goal is just to get a refund for overly high taxes in this country. I think we all can agree, left or right, that taxes are little on the high side. Now, I too am ignorant of the percentages that each income bracket gets so I cannot say if they are appropriate or not. I would personally support a constant percentage across all tax brackets. Although I haven't heard the arguments for varying percentages.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2003, 21:38   #20
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
The top 1% of earners pay 50% of all income taxes. So there is an income tax break and it is wrong for those people to get more money back than those who pay much less in taxes?
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2003, 00:22   #21
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
those same top 1% control about 50% of the money, do they not? let's be careful where we tread here.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2003, 03:47   #22
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
that's right, they earn more money than you or I, don't they have a right to? they or their ancestors worked hard for their money, they worked hard to improve and educate themselves and learn important job skills that helped them advance in their careers. They spent their money wisely and made good investments. Why is it wrong that they should have a lot of money, they worked the system and they earned it. You can do the same thing.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2003, 04:33   #23
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
That is what we are all trying to do. Get more money am I right? Or at least make enough money to survive. Matress is right, we can all do the same thing, but I doubt that the top 1% (Super rich) even knows that they have the power to control the economy. If the economy is down, are we really going to turn to the top 1% and tell them, "Hey you need to help 99% of us, can you help make the economy better by spending more of your money so that the circulating money will create more jobs? Thanks a bunch!"

If the answer is no (Which it is because the rich don't spend nearly as fast as the poor), then it's up to the poor to put money in circulation. And we all know that it won't happen because 99% of us didn't recieve a tax break.

Sorry to dissapoint the 99% of us.
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2003, 05:15   #24
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
I'm not exactly sure about the tax cut but I assume it is a lower percentage reduction across the board, so if there is a 1% reduction in your taxes and you pay $50,000 in taxes you're going to get back $500 but if you only pay $500 in taxes you'll only get $5 back. So yes the rich will get more money back because they paid more money in to begin with.

But anyway the question is does a tax cut for the rich stimulate the economy? I don't know, hasn't it been done before by Reagan and Bush 1? Did it work?
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2003, 05:40   #25
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
ummm..okay to point out a moronic staement, the rich do spend money. Lots of it. I used to work in a law firm where everyone who worked there was at least upper middle class. They spend wads of cash on all kinds of stupid shit. So yes, the rich do stimulate economy, yes, they do, in fact buy things; esp. gas for thier SUVs, A/C for their mansions, and the alchohol for thier spouses, who don't have to do anything because thier hubby does it all for them.

Second, The tax break is for everybody, not just the rich. The rich will get more back, because they own more so the percentage, while being the same, still results in a larger portion of money. Simple math or a calculator for you young'uns or Public schoolers out there (j/k) and take ten percent of 500, then of 5,000. You'll see a difference.
Bush has a very high approval rating, despite the overall whining in the medias, which goes to show that not everyone listens to the media, so we're not all brainwashed zombies. unless your listening to wonderful people like Jeanine Garafolo who (since she's famous) feels obliged to tell the American public who to believe. sorry. The woman has been in one good movie in her entire life, she's useless. Not that I care what she thinks anyway.
The tax cut was an attempt to get people morale up and to get them spending, plus more cash in hand, but then, the Democrats in thier infinite wisdom, started telling people that getting more money in you pocket was bad, you should be selling your soul to the government, let them take care of all the money troubles.

Oh yeah, and the presidential elections should go great for the democrats, what with Al Sharpton stealing the majority vote, the useless sack of blubber will actually lose the election by splitting the vote, just like Perot did to the republicans the year Clinton the Adulter got elected.

I mean, you stand by people who hate whites and Cheat on thier wives and don't like money? What the hell is wrong with you?

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2003, 07:10   #26
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
I never said the rich don't spend money. I said the rich don't spend nearly as fast as the poor.

A "tax break for everyone" that mainly helps the rich and not the poor? Sounds a lot like "favoring the rich" to us.

Quote:
I used to work in a law firm where everyone who worked there was at least upper middle class. They spend wads of cash on all kinds of stupid shit. So yes, the rich do stimulate economy, yes, they do, in fact buy things; esp. gas for thier SUVs, A/C for their mansions, and the alchohol for thier spouses, who don't have to do anything because thier hubby does it all for them.
That's great and I agree with you because middle and working class people are the ones who spend, but I'm not talking about Middle/Working Class, I'm talking about the top 1%. The working and middle class do not fall in the top 1%.

Quote:
I mean, you stand by people who hate whites and Cheat on thier wives and don't like money? What the hell is wrong with you?
I hope this isn't geared towards me or any of the working class users in this thread because 90% of us are white and like money (Like I said in a previous post, we all want money and are trying to get more of it.) For the cheating on wives part I don't know where that came from or why it matters.

Last edited by Starbucks; 8th July 2003 at 07:25.
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2003, 18:21   #27
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by Starbucks
I never said the rich don't spend money. I said the rich don't spend nearly as fast as the poor.

A "tax break for everyone" that mainly helps the rich and not the poor? Sounds a lot like "favoring the rich" to us.


That's great and I agree with you because middle and working class people are the ones who spend, but I'm not talking about Middle/Working Class, I'm talking about the top 1%. The working and middle class do not fall in the top 1%.
The rich are spending just as fast as the other 99% of us. You see, it doesn't look that way because they have more money, so it takes them longer to deplete their resources. For instance, when Bill Gates spends millions upon millions of dollars to double the size of his already gigantic house just because he has one new kid, that barely makes a dent in his wallet, but that is spending much faster than you or I. We could never hope to spend millions upon millions of dollars to double the size of our house.

And while you weren't talking about the middle/working class, neither was Fickle. He was making a point that the rich spend money, and much faster than you would like to think. He said at least upper-middle class.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2003, 19:26   #28
mmontgomery
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 17
This reminds me of a Wizard of Id comic strip. The king had promised everyone a 50% reduction in taxes across the board. Then he announces that he had rethought his decision. This tax cut would benefit the rich far more than the poor, since they pay far more taxes. Therefore, to punish the rich, the king has decided not to do the tax cut after all. Everyone cheers madly!!!

Just some brief facts about federal income taxes. 50% of the people in this country pay no tax (IRS statistic are publicly available). This is due to standard deductions and such that protect the first several thousand dollars earned from any federal income tax at all. If those people have children, they may get a substantial "refund" due to "earned income credit" and "child credit", so they could end up receiving "refunds" that are thousands of dollar more than was ever deducted for taxes in the first place.

Of those who pay, the percentage paid is not flat, but escalates. It begins at 15% and currently tops at nearly 40% (top used to be 70% at one time). So high wage earners not only pay more tax, they pay a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of what they earn as tax. After the tax cut, the high wage earners still pay far more taxes. Plus, many provisions, such as the child credit, are provided to everyone EXCEPT high wage earners. They are excluded from this credit. One might ask whether it is FAIR to give a child credit to everyone in the country, except high wage earners? Or whether it is fair that high wage earners pay a far higher percentage of their wages in taxes? Or whether it is fair that half of the country should pay no tax at all, or even make money from the federal income tax system?

People consistently equate high wage earners with rich. This is often not the case. Many rich people earn very little in wages, and income from investments are often done in such a way that they are shielded from taxes (tax exempt bonds for example). Conversely, high wage families ($75K or more in family income) are often not rich at all. I am considered a high wage earner. I have 7 children, I take care of my Grandmother, Mother, brain-damaged disabled Brother, and my Father-in-law. My wife is very ill, and cannot work. Even after insurance, I have been paying between $5K - $10K per year for her hospital and medicines. My grandmother has about $2K per year in prescription costs that medicare does not cover, that I have to pay on her behalf, since she has nothing from social security to cover this kind of expense. I regularly need to help my grandmother, mother, brother, and father-in-law with extraordinary expenses that social security or disability does not provide enough money to cover.

I am NOT rich. I have no savings. But because of my salary, I am excluded from programs that 90% of other families receive. No one looks to see where the salary goes. No one sees the number of people that this salary must be split up to support. No one looks at medical or other expenses. The way these programs work, they just look at income, period. If it is too high, tough luck.

So I don't get the same child credit benefits that others get. I pay at the highest possible tax bracket. We get no help with excess medical expenses. Poorer families get medical payments waived or get no interest payment plans; we get turned over to collection agencies if we fail to pay every penny of a $4,000 hospital bill on time.

The FAFSA form says that based on my salary, I can afford to spend $20,000 per year to send my daughter to college. Consequently, my daughter gets no help for college at all, and is excluded from even applying for scholarships that have a need-based component, though she very much needs the money, since I can provide very little to help her due to my other obligations. While her friend, who is the only child of a single mother, gets $5,000 per year in government grants automatically, and is free to apply to other need based programs as well. However, if you take her mother's income, and divide it by two, she makes $17K per person. If you take my income, and divide it by just my children (not counting the other family members I pay to support), I end up with far less per person. Yet my family is excluded, while her family gets lavished with grants that my taxes pay for.

We live more frugally than most families I know that are supposedly in poverty. We have no cable, or TV period for that matter. I can't remember the last time I have gone to a movie theatre, even for a dollar movie. My meal plan is very simple. Whatever the grocery store is offering for 50% or more off is our meals for that week. We buy meat and bread that is heavily discounted due to expiration. Most of our clothes are bought used from thrift stores. We live in an relatively inexpensive 3 bedroom house with a low mortgage payment, with 4 girls in one bedroom, and 3 boys in the other. Our newest car is 1992. We spend little to nothing on luxuries. The rare times that we do eat out, it is when large burgers are on sale for 99 cents. We have no video games and few toys, though we do have a computer I picked up for $50 on eBay and repaired, mostly to run educational software.

But I forgot. I need to be PUNISHED because I make a high salary. Unless other factors besides income are being taken into account, you may be overtaxing someone who can't afford to be paying for all of those people who don't pay taxes, and yet is excluded from receiving the benefits his taxes are paying for.
mmontgomery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2003, 22:26   #29
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
The bottom 40 percent of the population would receive just four percent of the tax cuts under the plan. This is about one-ninth of what the richest one percent would receive.

Can someone please explain to me how a tax cut favoring the rich will help stimulate the economy? And explain to me, when the rich get 8k from the 250k they earn, how does that contribute to helping the economy grow?
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2003, 22:38   #30
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by Starbucks
The bottom 40 percent of the population would receive just four percent of the tax cuts under the plan. This is about one-ninth of what the richest one percent would receive.

Can someone please explain to me how a tax cut favoring the rich will help stimulate the economy? And explain to me, when the rich get 8k from the 250k they earn, how does that contribute to helping the economy grow?
Bush's main idea was just to pay back people for paying too much in taxes. A "rich" individual would get back more because he/she payed more than the middle class person paying taxes. His secondary goal was to improve the economy. That was mostly an excuse to get it going. And the rich spend money just like you and me. They can save more because they have enough to spend and save at the same time.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2003, 22:50   #31
mmontgomery
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 17
The problem is not that the cuts favor high income, the problem is that the current tax system is highly biased against high income. So when you do an even-handed tax cut, those who PAY THE MOST TAXES get more benefit because they PAY MORE TO BEGIN WITH!

The graduated tax system is an evil invention, because then anytime someone does something to lower taxes across the board, they can always be accused of "favoring the rich". This is despite the fact that many provisions of the tax cut (such as the child credit) are explicitly excluded from high income taxpayers. So if anything, the tax cut is biased against the high income taxpayer due to these exclusions.

The only reason that the bottom 40% get even 4% (since they pay NOTHING in taxes), is that the child credit applies even if it would result in a refund exceeding the tax paid.

As for how tax cuts grow the economy, there are at least three ways. Savings are used to fund new small businesses, which provide employment and grow the economy. Consumption (spending) increases the demand for goods and services, which also grows the economy. A lower tax rate encourages expansion of business, instead of sheltering money in tax-exempt (government) bonds.
mmontgomery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2003, 00:37   #32
tiger84
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 101010
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally posted by mmontgomery
The problem is not that the cuts favor high income, the problem is that the current tax system is highly biased against high income. So when you do an even-handed tax cut, those who PAY THE MOST TAXES get more benefit because they PAY MORE TO BEGIN WITH!

The graduated tax system is an evil invention, because then anytime someone does something to lower taxes across the board, they can always be accused of "favoring the rich". This is despite the fact that many provisions of the tax cut (such as the child credit) are explicitly excluded from high income taxpayers. So if anything, the tax cut is biased against the high income taxpayer due to these exclusions.

The only reason that the bottom 40% get even 4% (since they pay NOTHING in taxes), is that the child credit applies even if it would result in a refund exceeding the tax paid.

As for how tax cuts grow the economy, there are at least three ways. Savings are used to fund new small businesses, which provide employment and grow the economy. Consumption (spending) increases the demand for goods and services, which also grows the economy. A lower tax rate encourages expansion of business, instead of sheltering money in tax-exempt (government) bonds.
Yet another voice of reason.

If life calls and you're busy, let the answering machine pick-up.

Just so you know, my previous avatar was NOT a swastika, nor did it have much similarity to one. Just thought I'd clear that up since I cannot use my own original art work.
tiger84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2003, 03:31   #33
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
I love to hear that voice.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2003, 03:53   #34
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
I wish I knew more about the tax system..Really I do.

BTW...Income Tax was one of the reasons we left England.
Income tax was also illegal until Congress passed a new article on the Constitution.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2003, 13:28   #35
DracoVulpine
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: That place...y'know...over there
Posts: 31
Paying more taxes because you're rich isn't a punishment...

Take the figures on how much America pays in taxes. Then try and get the same figures with each person having to pay the same percentage. Suddenly, you have people working low income jobs that cannot make ends meet just because the government is pulling too much out in taxes. Meanwhile, the rich get a break that lets them buy another car or house.

The rich pay more because they can AFFORD to (and because our country pays too much for common, everyday items, but that's an old issue).

So...a tax cut to the rich A) doesn't help the economy save for the stock market and 'maybe' the high end luxury items areas. B) takes money out of the goverment for needed programs (medicare, state aid, getting rid of the deficit, etc). C) does nothing for most of the nation.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/26/pf/t...alth/index.htm and http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/26/news...reut/index.htm

Please note that these were from 2000...and talk about what the tax cuts would have done then. Plus...read it...THIS WAS IN 2000...do you think things have gotten better since then? Read them. Scary stuff.
DracoVulpine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 03:58   #36
Starbucks
Forum King
 
Starbucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Forums
Posts: 2,685
I wish I could pay high taxes.
Starbucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 04:45   #37
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
you know, bush put an end to the tax on dividends.... because ill be damned if that wasnt driving john q public into the poorhouse.

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 05:09   #38
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Actually I would think that removing the tax on dividends would be a good way to get more money flowing into the economy, basically a dividend is money you get for own stock in a company that does well, but you didn't really do any work or anything special to "earn" dividends other than buy that company's stock. So in essense, dividends are basically free money. If someone just gives you 100 bucks for no real reason what are you going to do with it? bury it in your back yard? no you're going to go buy something because hey, you weren't really planning on getting this money so it's not like it's coming out of your budget it's basically throw away cash so might as well get something nice. Another thing people do with dividends is just reinvest that money back into the market, which is also goo for the economy, if people are buying more stock then stock prices go up and magically the economy gets better somehow.

That's my personal take on dividends anyway, maybe I'm wrong.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 05:27   #39
oNaMiSsIo
Major Dude
 
oNaMiSsIo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The box they keep me in
Posts: 1,115
Send a message via AIM to oNaMiSsIo
the problem is, you forget who owns dividends. the average working-class family has no money at all in the stock market. rich people put money in the stock market because they can afford to. when they get their dividend, who's to say what they will do with it? one thing is for sure, though, they are much more likely to simply put the money in the bank than someone who is living paycheck to paycheck. the working class will almost assuredly spend any tax cut they would have gotten (but didnt get any cut of meaningful proportions) because they have to to make ends meet. therefore, it is much more likely to help the economy by giving money to those who need it most because they will be the ones to spend it fastest and get money moving throughout the economy.

My advice is to start drinking heavily. - John Belushi, Animal House
oNaMiSsIo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2003, 05:39   #40
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
I'm below the poverty line but I have money in the market. I think rich people spend money faster than you think.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump