Wahoo, tax cuts could already be in effect!

[Train]

linkage


<< President Bush really wants the tax cuts to be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2001, so that economy-boosting cash gets into the hands of taxpaying consumers as soon as possible. That could even be accelerated, with Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill raising the possibility that extra taxes currently being withheld from paychecks could be refunded to employers and their workers before the year is out >>

Dasm!

this article is a good read, It seems the Dems and Reps in congress are both working this out and want to push this out quick, makes me feel a little better that these guys are actually working together on something. both sides will make compromises, but at least they are determined to get something done, which is cool.

edit: speeling

 

[saxman]

Some interesting quotes from the article.



<< The centerpiece of the Bush plan is a flattening of tax brackets >>





<< the top 1% of Americans would collect as much as 43% of the benefits. >>

 

[yakko]

saxman,

So what? The top one percent pay the most so of course they are going to get the biggest break. Some of those top one percent pay more in taxes than I make in a year.

 

Yay. More republican tax cuts.
Would be nice if they actaully benefitted more then just the top percentile of incomes.
But, history repeats itself.
You actually think you can cut taxes but increase govt. spending?

 

[Wingznut]

&quot;The tax cuts would be retroactive. Which I believe means that you get money back... that glows in the dark.&quot;

&quot;$1600 is the average tax cut for a four person family. And all I ask in return, is that you be my buddy.&quot;

--G.W., SNL style.

 

[saxman]

Yakko - One of the major justifications for this tax cut is that it will help the economy. The base of our economy does not lie in the richest 1% of our population. It lies in the average consumer. Giving huge tax cuts to millionaires will not significantly help our economy.

 

[Bryan]

Think about it, those who are smart/lucky enough to be in the top 1% of wealth aren't paying much anyway. They can afford chintzy accountants who can itemize belly button fuzz and write off enough so that they don't pay anyway.

 

[Xede]

I never cease to be amazed by all the people who fail to understand the straightforward math involved with examining the effects of taxes or tax cuts.

 

[Train]

you guys missed the blunt of the article, it was clearly stated that neither side would be happy until ALL tax brackets recieve a cut. The average citizen recieves $579.10 this year in tax cuts. now think about AVERAGE, do you think the top 1% of Americans make up that average? NO, the millions of poeple in the middle are who get it.

 

[Moonbeam]

&quot;The rich pay the most taxes so naturally they get the biggest return&quot; That's pure bull. There is no reason they have to get anything back except that theirs are the contributions that allow the Republicans to buy enough brainwashing to try to convince enough people that the tax cuts are for average Americans. The Republicans are taking care of their base. The money could as well be transfered to the botton of the economic heap and the economy would be just as nicely stimulated. Them what gots gets. Wealth constantly accumulates in fewer and fewer hands at the top. Without some mechanism to keep it circulating we will collapse.

 

[shiner]

Sigh....you can very easily obtain IRS records that show that the top 1% of the income earners in this country pay 42% of the taxes. Is that fair? No! Would you people be happier if they raised the top income tax back up to 90% like it was in the early 60's?

 

[saxman]

shinerburke, please point me to where I can obtain those records, thanks.

 

[desertdweller]

<<You actually think you can cut taxes but increase govt. spending>>

The tax cuts being proposed are a small portion of the Surplus of money built up by the Clinton administration. They are far less than half of the total surplus. Since they aren't using the entire surplus for tax cuts, they can increas spending and have a cut at the same time.

A surplus means the government has more money than it needs to operate.

A business would call a surplus a profit.

So now the question becomes, Is it right for the government to
show a profit from its citizens?

DD

 

[shiner]

Go down to your local IRS office and ask for the report(can't think of the name) that shows the amount of revenue collected for previous tax filings. Among the many other things this report will show is a breakdown of income levels and dollar amounts that each income level paid into the federal coffers.

 

[KarsinTheHutt]

wtf! why doesn't our government just pay down the debt? Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I don't like the fact that our Nation is a debtor (5.5 Trillion $ at that).

 

[Train]

well, there IS a big debt, and no one likes that, but would it be quicker to pay it off with the surplus (which some of it already is) or to give the slowing economy a nice kick in the rear to stimulate even more tax revenue and thus pay off the debt quicker?

some economists believe the goevernment of a successful economy HAS to carry a debt, should it be 5.5 Trillion? probly not, but to try and pay that off as the top priority could leave a lot of other areas in bad shape and we could end up in a much worse situation.

No one likes to see the huge chunks of money cut off of each paycheck, but the avg american will get an extra $24 per paycheck (figuring 24 paychecks a year) and If I saw an extra $24, sounds small, but damn that would make me happy.

Personally I think the minimum wage should be MUCH higer, there are way too many americans that are forced to work for minimum wage, the best way, IMO, to get more money to the lower classes is to have a high minumum wage. But then you have to consider there are so many kids that are like 15 workin at McDonalds just for some extra spending cash, and then there are single mothers or strugling families working for minumum wage. Maybe they should have a minumum wage for ages 15-18, a little higer for 18-21, then a bigger one for 22 and up. But then I guess companies would pass up the older for younger workers and then we'd be in a big mess. Hmm, good thing I dont work in washington trying to figure all this out.

 

[Michael]

KarsintheHut - I actually makes sense for the government to have long-term debt for long-term projects. What doesn't make sense is to go into debt for spending that only has a short-term benefit.

Moonbeam - Although there are far more millionaires these days, it still isn't much of a base to get elected on. I am in the top 1% in the country (by far when you toss my wife's income in). We can use the tax cut, Silicon Valley is expensive.

Michael

 

[Russ]

<< Would be nice if they actaully benefitted more then just the top percentile of incomes. >>



This is such utter crap, I can't believe anyone over the age of 12 still actually barfs up this stupidity. ANY TAX RATE CUT BENEFITS EVERYONE. Geez.

It is NOT a zero sum game. The fact that someone who PAYS many times more in to the system gets to keep a larger dollar amount - not percentage of their own money then you, does not hurt you in any way.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Double Trouble]

Moonbeam, <<There is no reason they have to get anything back>>

Ah yes, the politics of class envy. So what if they pay the vast majority of taxes, they are rich, they obviously deserve to have the government steal all their money, they should get nothing back. In fact, why don't we just put them in prison and take all their assets and distribute them through large democrat programs?? :|

I tell ya, a basic understanding of economics, statistics and finance should be mandatory before someone is allowed to comment on this on TV or radio. I can't believe how many stupid moron reporters and commentators I've already heard saying things like &quot;the rich will get more money back&quot;. Of course they will, they also paid the most.

Just for simplicity, lets assume that each taxpayer got a flat 1% tax cut (so everyone got the exact same percentage). If someone paid $1,000,000 in taxes last year, they'd be getting back $10,000 -- while someone paying $100,000 in taxes would only get back $1,000. Of course the morons in the media will translate this into &quot;the rich got 90% of the tax cut, while the poor only got 10%&quot;. Anyone with half a brain realizes that those who pay more will get more back.. sheesh.

As for those who say we should use the money to pay the debt back -- we are paying the debt off AND getting a tax cut. If we pay down the debt quickly, we'll run the risk on some very serious consequences to the economy (see Greenspan's comments on that if you want to know why).

It's about time those who actually make the money get some of our money returned to us by the crooks in Washington (instead of them squandering it on some bum on welfare).

 

[Moonbeam]

Tagej, the issue, of course, has nothing to do with class envy. Class envy is a term invented by the wealthy to convince everyone else that envy is all that's involved in an economic analysis of society that sees danger in the consentration of wealth that is occurring. Mention redistribution and you get 'oh that's class envy, can't have class envy' Please. And you speak as if it was some big mystery that the Bush plan gives more to the wealthy. My whole point was that we don't have to have the Bush plan. The real question I pose is whether we are experiencing a concentration of wealth and what are the implications. This, I think, is a valid and serious subject about which there are many cogent opinions. I don't think an intelligent alternative is to put them in prison and redistribute their wealth through some democratic plan. Your thinking could use a little polish, if you don't mind me saying so.

There are many problems with Bush's plan in terms of fairness. Those at the low end get nothing even though they pay heavily in other forms of tax like social security. They are being disproportionately unrewarded because their tax burdon in ont on income. Adjustments could be made there, for example.

If the country becomes a banana republic, it will turn out that those advocating some kind of anti-top accumulation of wealth will look like patroits instead of the envious. If you have settled all these issues in your mind, fine. I remain open to the possibility that there is much to learn.

 

[Wingznut]

So, he wants to cut taxes. But he also wants to give the military members a raise, strengthen the defense, give money to religious organizations, etc...

Does this mean that GW doesn't give a rat's @ss about a balanced budget?

Does the US Government actually have an accountant?

 

[Russ]

<< economic analysis of society that sees danger in the consentration of wealth that is occurring. >>



Moonbeam,

Too bad you know nothing about economics and finance. You make the same stupid error as your liberal brethren; the fallacious assumption that resources are static. They are not.

Money, income and wealth are dynamic. The same people who occupy the upper echelon of incomes today, are NOT the same people from two decades ago. The converse is also true.

To punish achievement in order to reward lethargy is to erode the very foundation of the economy itself.

Russ, NCNE

 

[yakko]

Moonbeam,

That is why the whole income tax should be replaced with a national sales tax with no exemptions. That way if I spend $20,000 a year and Bill Gates spends $20,000 a year we bith pay the same in taxes. That is the only fair way to tax a society. No one should pay more or less based on their income.

 

[yakko]

<< Does the US Government actually have an accountant? >>


Remember this is the same government that gives contracts to the lowest bidder and then does nothing about the cost overruns on a project. If you can't build it for what you quoted then you take the loss just like when you do a bid on a private contract.

 

[Russ]

<< Does this mean that GW doesn't give a rat's @ss about a balanced budget? >>



Wingznut PEZ,

Do yourself a favor and study economics, or at least history. First, tax RATES are being cut, NOT taxes. It is an indisputable FACT that rate cuts generate MORE revenue, not LESS. More income = pay down debt faster.

Russ, NCNE