Bush tax policy sucks if you work to live.

[Jhhnn]

The topic, LMK, is Bush's tax policy, meaning federal income taxes. The individuals cited in my first two links paid zero taxes quite legally, the figures cited are from the IRS. They say it's legal, and I'm not prepared to argue....

"oh and he pays property taxes, sales taxes, and many other taxes; so even if you insist on being anal, you are still wrong. "

Not necessarily. The individuals in question might not own any US real estate, might well have spent the entire year or more in Bermuda, or the Netherlands Antilles, or the Caymans- places where such taxes don't exist. By declaring themselves citizens of Texas, for example, they won't pay any state income taxes, either...

America's wealthy have been the recipients of numerous tax breaks over the last 20 years, simply by financing the political process, gaining access, convincing our elected representatives to do their bidding. They contribute roughly 2 to 1 in favor of the Republicans, and it's been a good investment so far. Financing the Dems is more of a hedge bet than anything else, at this point.

People who are members of the political donor class don't have to cheat on their taxes- they just have the laws rewritten in their favor. Even on the off chance that the underfunded IRS challenges them on some tax sheltered international partnership investment, they have the wherewithall to negotiate, litigate, drag it out ad infinitum, putting the tax man in the position where it's better to settle for a few cents on the dollar rather than attempt collection on the entire amount...

And it's all "Perfectly Legal", also the title of a book on the subject- highly recommended.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Conservatives crack me up with thier "I earned that money, it's mine" mantra. Sells really well that's why capitalists don't pay or pay little in tax. But thier money wasn't earned in a vacuum. The commercial enterprise where they work or that they own operates within a society that has a vast public infrastructure that someone has to pay for.

This vast public infrastructure also creates vast opportunities such that the taxes you pay reap you tremendous returns. The proof of that is the fact that the twenty wealthiest nations on earth all have an extensive public sector.


"Minimalist government" countries, with low taxes and little public investment in infrastructure and government services, are impoverished cesspools -- except for a handful of wealthy elites.

Or this that the true goal of conservatives?

Well said, sir. They want to reap the benefits but they want their workers to pay for their farm.

 

[heartsurgeon]

By drastically favoring investment income over salary, fees and other "earned income," Bush would make it harder for people who start out with nothing to earn their way up the economic ladder, because they'd pay full taxes on almost everything they make, but he'd shower rewards on people who have already made it to the top rungs.

This neatly ignores the ELEPHANT STANDING IN THE ROOM.

Bush CUT EVERYONE"S TAX RATE!!!

EVERYONE KEEPS MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY.

Gee, don't you think getting to keep more of what you earn will help you "up the economic ladder"

who ever wrote this article is brain dead. time to call the organ procurement team!

 

[UltraQuiet]

Taxes

According to world socialist website less than one tenth of 1% of people who made over $200K in 1998 had zero tax liability.

It's an injustice of monumental proportions. The ruling class must be stopped.

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

By drastically favoring investment income over salary, fees and other "earned income," Bush would make it harder for people who start out with nothing to earn their way up the economic ladder, because they'd pay full taxes on almost everything they make, but he'd shower rewards on people who have already made it to the top rungs.

This neatly ignores the ELEPHANT STANDING IN THE ROOM.

Bush CUT EVERYONE"S TAX RATE!!!

EVERYONE KEEPS MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY.

Gee, don't you think getting to keep more of what you earn will help you "up the economic ladder"

who ever wrote this article is brain dead. time to call the organ procurement team!

In the latest issue of US News they broke down tax brackets and tax breaks and the only people who got a greater tax break then the extremely wealthy were families earning less then 45k, they got about a 20% break, the rich got an 11% break and everyone else got less tax relief.

EDIT: It was last weeks Newsweek, my bad.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just think, UQ, if a few creative individuals managed to reduce their taxes to zero, then others in the same circumstances obviously used the same rules to reduce their liability substantially, often to near zero... and apparently, the more one makes, the more such options are available. The fact that the top 400 paid 5% less in federal taxes than the rest of the top 1% pretty much indicates that's true...

I'm quite familiar with the source you've linked, and the fact that their charts and graphs refer to declared AGI, adjusted gross income. The secret, obviously, is in the declaration and the adjustment... and the source of income. Taxes on passive income (capital gains, dividends) are at a much lower rate than earned income (wages, salaries) and aren't subject to the AMT, either...

Nor do I understand how a military retiree can be so ardently anti-tax. Taxes paid your salary for twenty-something years, and possibly a decent retirement besides.... And that's good for everybody involved. And, uhh, welcome to the world of Capitalism, where your retirement savings can disappear overnight, along with your job...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Just think, UQ, if a few creative individuals managed to reduce their taxes to zero, then others in the same circumstances obviously used the same rules to reduce their liability substantially, often to near zero... and apparently, the more one makes, the more such options are available. The fact that the top 400 paid 5% less in federal taxes than the rest of the top 1% pretty much indicates that's true...

I'm quite familiar with the source you've linked, and the fact that their charts and graphs refer to declared AGI, adjusted gross income. The secret, obviously, is in the declaration and the adjustment... and the source of income. Taxes on passive income (capital gains, dividends) are at a much lower rate than earned income (wages, salaries) and aren't subject to the AMT, either...

Nor do I understand how a military retiree can be so ardently anti-tax. Taxes paid your salary for twenty-something years, and possibly a decent retirement besides.... And that's good for everybody involved. And, uhh, welcome to the world of Capitalism, where your retirement savings can disappear overnight, along with your job...

This same group you complain about not paying taxes(top 1%) is also responsable for paying 34% of all income taxes.

linkage

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Dman877

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

By drastically favoring investment income over salary, fees and other "earned income," Bush would make it harder for people who start out with nothing to earn their way up the economic ladder, because they'd pay full taxes on almost everything they make, but he'd shower rewards on people who have already made it to the top rungs.

This neatly ignores the ELEPHANT STANDING IN THE ROOM.

Bush CUT EVERYONE"S TAX RATE!!!

EVERYONE KEEPS MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY.

Gee, don't you think getting to keep more of what you earn will help you "up the economic ladder"

who ever wrote this article is brain dead. time to call the organ procurement team!

In the latest issue of US News they broke down tax brackets and tax breaks and the only people who got a greater tax break then the extremely wealthy were families earning less then 45k, they got about a 20% break, the rich got an 11% break and everyone else got less tax relief.

EDIT: It was last weeks Newsweek, my bad.

it is true that the middle class got more of a break than anyone. but you cannot tell a democrat that.

 

[Genesys]

if you work to live....? as compared to what, leeching to live?

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, well, here's a slightly different take on Bush's policy-

http://www.fair.org/extra/0105/tax-cuts.html

This, from the linked piece-

"Citizens for Tax Justice calculated (2/15/01) that the revenue lost from the plan's proposed tax cuts for households in the richest 1 percent alone totals $774 billion over 10 years--more money than the $738 billion it would take to provide prescription drugs to every Medicare recipient, an idea with so much popular support it was favored by both the Gore and Bush campaigns last year."

Wait, I forgot, all these tax "cuts" are free, right? We'll just put it on the tab, let our grandchildren worry about it....

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

While that's true in total dollars, it's utterly false in terms of total taxes as a % of income, or any other honest metric.

why isn't total $ amount an honest metric? Do the rich get more from the government than the poor? do the rich drive different highways or have different firefighters than the poor? Does a different military protect the rich?

"those who benefit most from our nation should pay more" this presumes the communist idea that the government is the nation, that doing well in the country means you owe something extra to the government, that the government has a right to anyone's life, liberty, or property irregardless of what the people of the nation want.

Their is a republican majority for a reason: The people of the united states don't want a government big enough to 'give' them everything they want, because they don't want a government big enough to take away everything that they have.

Low taxation on investment capital yields higher employment, better production, an overall lower cost of goods, and a beater quality of life for everyone, including those in poverty: almost all of whom have a place to live, have plenty of food, and own a car.

People below the poverty line in America live better and have more opportunities for advancement than the middle class of most other industrialized nations.

The capitalists do get more from the government than any poor or working people.

They get an educated work force paid for by the government to draw from. Don't belive me? try and open a semi conductor plant in Ziare and let me know how that works out for you.

They get "protection" in the form of law and order, patents, copyrights etc which places an artifical surplus charge to thier governemnt protected goods/services. Goverment agents enforce this profit motive.

They get free land and tax breaks to start businesses/open a business in a certain area which your small business/sole propietor does'nt get.

They get military protection abroad to continue commerce and open new markets.

They get satellite communications paid for by goverment.

They get a banking system which the goverment backs for them to reap profits...remember S&L's?



Just like an insurance policy asks you to pay more the more you have to protect and insure so should the capitalists should have to pay more. Certainly not get off owing nothing as many do now..for generations.

Not to mention Bush cut the already laughable small business fund by something like 1/3. Education is laughable. Military ++. We will fight our way back into economic prosperity I suppose.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

By drastically favoring investment income over salary, fees and other "earned income," Bush would make it harder for people who start out with nothing to earn their way up the economic ladder, because they'd pay full taxes on almost everything they make, but he'd shower rewards on people who have already made it to the top rungs.

This neatly ignores the ELEPHANT STANDING IN THE ROOM.

Bush CUT EVERYONE"S TAX RATE!!!

EVERYONE KEEPS MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY.

Gee, don't you think getting to keep more of what you earn will help you "up the economic ladder"

who ever wrote this article is brain dead. time to call the organ procurement team!

Some people dont earn enough to invest in investment income. For instance.. teachers.. I suppose they dont deserve it because of their low job status. Anyways that is the type of point the author is portraying. Open your eyes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

By drastically favoring investment income over salary, fees and other "earned income," Bush would make it harder for people who start out with nothing to earn their way up the economic ladder, because they'd pay full taxes on almost everything they make, but he'd shower rewards on people who have already made it to the top rungs.

This neatly ignores the ELEPHANT STANDING IN THE ROOM.

Bush CUT EVERYONE"S TAX RATE!!!

EVERYONE KEEPS MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY.

Gee, don't you think getting to keep more of what you earn will help you "up the economic ladder"

who ever wrote this article is brain dead. time to call the organ procurement team!

Some people dont earn enough to invest in investment income. For instance.. teachers.. I suppose they dont deserve it because of their low job status. Anyways that is the type of point the author is portraying. Open your eyes.

Funny, the teachers retirement plan here is based on investments......

 

[Jhhnn]

"Funny, the teachers retirement plan here is based on investments......"

Quite true- probably a large defined benefit group plan with professional independent administrators, right?

Most companies are trying to dump 'em, many already have, in favor of defined contribution plans, administered by them, preferably with all your dough invested in the company's own stock- kinda like Enron.... or 401K's, where you get to roll your own dice as to investment choices, get eaten alive by fees....

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Funny, the teachers retirement plan here is based on investments......"

Quite true- probably a large defined benefit group plan with professional independent administrators, right?

Most companies are trying to dump 'em, many already have, in favor of defined contribution plans, administered by them, preferably with all your dough invested in the company's own stock- kinda like Enron.... or 401K's, where you get to roll your own dice as to investment choices, get eaten alive by fees....

Never seen a 401k administered by a company. Never seen a 401k that forced you to keep company contributed stock(some may require you to hold a given time).

The 401ks I have used in the past have had excellent options for investment.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Until investment income is taxed like what it is, income, those that make their money from investment income, the rich, do not pay their fair share. I ain't rich, but I do make some money off investments, and Bush's tax cuts RAISED my taxes. I am stuck paying that flat 15% on dividends as opposed to as it was before where it was taxed as income I'd get most if not all of that back. So here I am, a college student with little to no earned income getting slapped with higher taxes while some fat cat making hundreds of thousands of dollars got the taxes he's having to pay on his dividends, and likely a good chunk of his actual income, cut in half.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Until investment income is taxed like what it is, income, those that make their money from investment income, the rich, do not pay their fair share. I ain't rich, but I do make some money off investments, and Bush's tax cuts RAISED my taxes. I am stuck paying that flat 15% on dividends as opposed to as it was before where it was taxed as income I'd get most if not all of that back. So here I am, a college student with little to no earned income getting slapped with higher taxes while some fat cat making hundreds of thousands of dollars got the taxes he's having to pay on his dividends cut in half.

As far as i know, the only the changed about the taxation of dividends is the rate at which they are taxed(lowered).

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Until investment income is taxed like what it is, income, those that make their money from investment income, the rich, do not pay their fair share. I ain't rich, but I do make some money off investments, and Bush's tax cuts RAISED my taxes. I am stuck paying that flat 15% on dividends as opposed to as it was before where it was taxed as income I'd get most if not all of that back. So here I am, a college student with little to no earned income getting slapped with higher taxes while some fat cat making hundreds of thousands of dollars got the taxes he's having to pay on his dividends cut in half.

As far as i know, the only the changed about the taxation of dividends is the rate at which they are taxed(lowered).

No, they changed it from being taxed as ordinary income. Now it's taxed like capital gains, independent from your earned income.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

anyone can get a muni and get no-tax interest on them; the money put in this has alredy had taxes paid.

Bush tax policy sucks if you work to live.

actually this inflation is going to make the debaters debt look less.. bad; it'll also make the richars money less valuable.

Until investment income is taxed like what it is, income, those that make their money from investment income, the rich, do not pay their fair share.

if this is the case then all taxes on cooperations should be done away with.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Until investment income is taxed like what it is, income, those that make their money from investment income, the rich, do not pay their fair share. I ain't rich, but I do make some money off investments, and Bush's tax cuts RAISED my taxes. I am stuck paying that flat 15% on dividends as opposed to as it was before where it was taxed as income I'd get most if not all of that back. So here I am, a college student with little to no earned income getting slapped with higher taxes while some fat cat making hundreds of thousands of dollars got the taxes he's having to pay on his dividends cut in half.

As far as i know, the only the changed about the taxation of dividends is the rate at which they are taxed(lowered).

No, they changed it from being taxed as ordinary income. Now it's taxed like capital gains, independent from your earned income.

Which means instead of being taxed at the top marginal rate of 38.6%, it now taxed at 15%. Not sure how this can come out a loser with a 61% reduction in tax load on dividends.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Bush CUT EVERYONE"S TAX RATE!!!

EVERYONE KEEPS MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY.

i'm appalled that some of you apparently are so blinded by class envy and Bush-Hatred that your unable to grasp this simple fact.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Until investment income is taxed like what it is, income, those that make their money from investment income, the rich, do not pay their fair share. I ain't rich, but I do make some money off investments, and Bush's tax cuts RAISED my taxes. I am stuck paying that flat 15% on dividends as opposed to as it was before where it was taxed as income I'd get most if not all of that back. So here I am, a college student with little to no earned income getting slapped with higher taxes while some fat cat making hundreds of thousands of dollars got the taxes he's having to pay on his dividends cut in half.

As far as i know, the only the changed about the taxation of dividends is the rate at which they are taxed(lowered).

No, they changed it from being taxed as ordinary income. Now it's taxed like capital gains, independent from your earned income.

Which means instead of being taxed at the top marginal rate of 38.6%, it now taxed at 15%. Not sure how this can come out a loser with a 61% reduction in tax load on dividends.

IMO that marginal rate was too high for any income level. But lots of rich people make a lot of their money on dividends and capital gains, and they get this reduction on a huge amount, if not the majority, of their actual income. These people making hundreds and thousands of dollars in total income each year just aren't paying their fair share at 15%.

Let's say

Person A makes $100K earned income, $300K in capital gains and dividends.
Person B makes $300K earned income, $100K in capital gains and dividends.
Person A is paying 28% of $100K + 15% of 300K, or $73K in taxes.
Person B is paying 33% of $300K + 15% of 100K, or $114K in taxes.
So Person B is paying 36% more tax than person A on the same amount of actual income.

Or how about this scenerio

Person A makes $100K earned income, $100K in capital gains and dividends
Person B makes $100K earned income, $0 in capital gains and dividends
Person A is paying $43000 in taxes
Person B is paying $28000 in taxes
So person A is only paying 53% more in total taxes even though he's making 100% more than Person B

Not all of this situation is Bush's doing, capital gains have been taxed seperately from income for a long time, and to my knowlege, always at a rate lower than the top income tax bracket. But Bush has made the desparity between the taxes of those that work for their money vs. those lucky enough not to even greater with his cuts. There's no way to get around it, folks not having to actually work for their money are taxed at a lower rate than those that are, and Bush has helped lower that rate even further. So indeed, Bush's tax policy sucks (even more than it used to) if you work to live.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Until investment income is taxed like what it is, income, those that make their money from investment income, the rich, do not pay their fair share. I ain't rich, but I do make some money off investments, and Bush's tax cuts RAISED my taxes. I am stuck paying that flat 15% on dividends as opposed to as it was before where it was taxed as income I'd get most if not all of that back. So here I am, a college student with little to no earned income getting slapped with higher taxes while some fat cat making hundreds of thousands of dollars got the taxes he's having to pay on his dividends cut in half.

As far as i know, the only the changed about the taxation of dividends is the rate at which they are taxed(lowered).

No, they changed it from being taxed as ordinary income. Now it's taxed like capital gains, independent from your earned income.

Which means instead of being taxed at the top marginal rate of 38.6%, it now taxed at 15%. Not sure how this can come out a loser with a 61% reduction in tax load on dividends.

Just shows how out of touch with reallity charrison is most people are not in the highest tax rate, in fact it tends to be the rich that are or should be in the highest tax rate.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Charrison-

"Never seen a 401k administered by a company. Never seen a 401k that forced you to keep company contributed stock(some may require you to hold a given time). "

Not what I said....

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Charrison-

"Never seen a 401k administered by a company. Never seen a 401k that forced you to keep company contributed stock(some may require you to hold a given time). "

Not what I said....

Most companies are trying to dump 'em, many already have, in favor of defined contribution plans, administered by them, preferably with all your dough invested in the company's own stock- kinda like Enron...

That is exactly what you said.