Actually, I’d love that job. I like challenges. And any pres that could get himself that setup would be a genius.
Oooh, and it could be like “To Tell The Truth” type deal where three interpretations are given and everyone guesses until Wink Martindale says “Will the real policy please stand up!” I like it!
Yes, this is a mountain being made out of a molehill. But it is the kind of thing that people pick up and run with. Bush has his, and Kerry has some, too.
Now you hit a hot buttom with me. I got slapped with a nice “little” AMT payment several years back (you owe tax on income you **might ** make in the future) and have hidden most of my money from the tax system ever since.
Oops, forgot to add: All the income hiding I’ve done is perfectly legal. I’ve even been audited twice and received a clean bill of health!
Heh. Vested but unexercised options, I’m guessing? That sucks. Did your stock at least hold up well enough that you eventually saw the cash?
I got hit with it, but it wasn’t a surprise – I saw it coming from a bracket away and I’ve got nowhere to hide income or gain eligible deductions. I’m just a wage earner and occasionally successful investor in publicly traded securities. The closest thing to a “shelter” I’ve got is maxing out my 401-K every year and using Transitchek. So President Bush was pretty much talking to me – or rather a version of me who lives in a lower-tax state.
Sorry for your unpleasant surprise.
So this is what plutocrats talk about. I always wanted to know.
Rich bastards.
Yep. I was one of the “lucky” ones, though in that the stock did hold up, more or less. I do know people who ended up owing MORE than the stock was worth. Some were too stupid to sell when they should have, some were genuinely screwed.
Yes, but we usually do it while lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills. 
Except that they have been cut by a larger proportion (as a percentage of their total tax burden) than everyone else’s [see here]. And, this is after a period when they have enjoyed huge gains in after-tax income (201% in real terms for the top 1% between 1979 and 2000) while those at the median have enjoyed much less (15% in real terms over that period) and the bottom even less. (See here.)
Also, the rich pay the vast majority of the taxes simply because they have the vast…and increasing…majority of the income.
And, what, poor people don’t stimulate the economy? In fact, in a recession, one is generally suffering from a lack of demand…Thus, it makes more sense to cut the taxes of those who will go out and spend the money rather than those who will invest it. The investors aren’t going to build factories just because they have more money if those factories will lie dormant. And, of course, the proof is in the pudding. We have what must surely be the most expensive “stimulus” package in history and we have incredibly weak job growth (with only a few good months) with less jobs today than when Bush took office.
The argument that cutting taxes on the rich is better for the economy as a whole than any other alternative (such as cutting them on the poor and/or increasing spending and/or not running as big a deficit) is non-existent. And, there is certainly evidence that if you gear your economic policies toward the rich, the rich will enjoy large benefits whereas the poor and middle class will get almost nil. By contrast, during the Clinton years, the benefits were more broadly shared…although still with very large gains for the top 1%. (See the CBPP cite above.)
Besides which, if you want money in the hands of the rich, giving it to the poor and middle class will get it into the hands of the rich soon enough anyway since those people will go out and spend it and the money will end up where most of the money ends up. (More than 40% of the financial wealth is held by the top 1%.) However, in the meantime, you have at least helped out the poor and middle class.
Well, so can you remind me what exactly he has done to get rid of the loopholes? (I mean, besides just get rid of the tax entirely…like with the estate tax. I suppose you don’t have loopholes in a tax if you don’t have the tax.)
I also think, by the way, that he has exaggerated the extent to which the very rich get out of paying taxes…a very cynical ploy in fact. Even David Cay Johnston in “Perfectly Legal” would not go as far as Bush has in such a statement.
They are the base of the financial support for his campaign however. With enough money and cynical ploys like Bush is using, you can convince lots of other people to vote against their interests.
Here are some hard facts about the reported income and taxes of the top 400 taxpayers (according to reported income), as released by the IRS and reported in David Cay Johnston’s book:
(1) In the year 2000, the minimum income to make this list was $86.6 million (more than triple the $24.4 million in 1992). These numbers represent a 1.1% and 0.5% share of the total reported income in 2000 and 1992, respectively. The average income in this group of 400 was $174 million, up from $46.8 million in 1992.
(2) Their effective federal income tax rate on this income was 22.2% in 2000 (which was down from 26.4% in 1992 and 29.9% at its peak in 1995). By contrast, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers was 15.3% in 2000 (up from 13% in 1992).
(3) If the Bush tax cuts had been in effect in 2000, the 22.2% effective rate for the top 400 would have instead been 17.5%.
So, the moral here is that there are some extremely high-income people who are paying significant taxes. The income tax structure is even still a bit progressive on these people, in the sense that they pay at a higher rate than average, although it became less progressive during the Clinton years and even moreso under Bush. (Note that the progressivity of the federal income tax is partially offset by the regressivity of the payroll taxes and the state and local taxes.)
What assumptions does he make about behavior changes?
So you’re under the opinion that you can raise the taxes of the wealthy and GAIN increased flow of funds to the government?
If you look at the last tax rebate you will find that the wealthy received less of a tax break than the middle class. This means they now pay a greater share of the tax load. Most of the tax abatement was targeted at investment income. It was designed to stimulate investment. Higher levels of investment were part of the economic mix that led to such a quick recovery.
Any attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy will short circuit that process. Money will be pulled OUT of the market and reinvested elsewhere. It will trigger a recession and ultimately a loss of tax revenue due to a shrinking economy. The wealthy will simply move their wealth to a market that wants it.
Next time you want to tax the next guy above you on the totem pole consider the fact that you are much wealthier that most of the people on this planet. Be careful what you wish for.
Just because I cannot stand the thought of the little digs jshore will include with this.
Are you under the impression that you can lower the taxes on the wealthy and raise revenue? Can you lower them to 0 and raise and infinite amount?
True only if you look at the income tax. You do know there are lots of other taxes, and many of them are pid more heavily by the lower income groups.
Thus:
is not at all true. They may pay a greater share of the income tax load, but almost certainly not a greater share of the total tax load. Do you know how much of the total taxes are accounted for by income taxes?
Can you give me the start and end dates of the last several recessions? Are you sure that this last recovery was so quick?
The use of the word “Any” is misplaced.
Some money may be pulled out, but there is not necessarily a direct relationship.
How was that jshore I know I did not provide the requisite cites. I know I did not quote Krugman or Cay. I also know I did not include the usual digs at Bush. Otherwise, what do you think?
Magiver, If you don’t mind a bit of advice. Please don’t take Rush Limbaugh at face value. He is great to listen to. I like him quite a bit. But his ability to communicate complex economic issues is severly comprimised sometimes.
Like, for instance, when he’s ripped to the tits on pills.
Well, no, that’s not what I was talking about. I was simply talking about his tendency to turn “may” into “shall” in terms of complex economic arguments.
But thank you for the ripped to the tits image. I’m going to need to clean my eyes now. 
If this is quick, I’d hate to see slow. :dubious:
Nobody caught the irony about Ted Kennedy: this man has worked tirelessly to expand the size and power of the Fedral Government…and the fact that it now consumes a good 32% of every dollar earned. The social programs that Ted Kennedy has voted for bring ever-increasing costs to the taxpayers…but, given the opportunity to fund these programs, what does he do? He actually avoids paying his “fair share”. I have no problem with anybody being a big-government liberal…as long as you are honest about it (and willing to shoulder the tax burden)!
You can argue all day long about it…but the fact is, eople WILL NOT apy more than a certain amount of their incomes in taxes…when you get to confiscatory levels, people will use all means to evade paying taxes.
Oh, and check out Jonathan edwards…he avoided $5 million in taxes (on his ill-gotten gains)…yet he whines incessantly about “two americas”…I’m hoping the IRS performs a full audit of HIS tax returns, before November!
DEFINITION: Liberal: someone who would give you the shirt off someone else’s back> 
Bad cite. They are showing figures for total taxes. They are including state and local taxes, things which Bush has no control over.
So, when a certain demographic does well in this country, we should punish them with higher taxes? That makes sense. Oh, wait, no it doesn’t.
Yes. So?
You make some good arguments for cutting taxes on the poor instead of the rich. However, if you want to cut taxes, there really isn’t much room to cut them on the poor. The income tax is what Bush has the most control over. This is already basically non-existant for the poor. The bottom 50% of the country only pays something like 4% of the income tax. It just doesn’t make sense for them to get a tax cut if you are cutting income tax. They are already at the lowest rates possible.
Poor and middle class people do stimulate the economy, just not as much as rich people do IMO. They don’t invest in new plants and equipment, they don’t build new factories and start new companies. You need this type of investment for the economy to grow.
I also don’t buy your proof is in the pudding argument about a bad economy under Bush. There just isn’t any way to know this either way. I think it’s rather obvious that Bush’s tax cuts made the inevitable recession after the dot-com boom far milder than it could have been. You disagree. Well, without a crystal ball, it’s impossible to tell. What any reasonable person should agree with is that any action the government takes, from adjusting the discount rate to lowering taxes, has a minimal effect. The economy raises and lowers like a tide, and the governments tools are like a shovel. It can have an effect, but not much of one.
You answer your own question. That loopholes exist is one of many reasons that our tax system is bad. Fixing tax issues like loopholes, lowering taxes, or cutting taxes entirely are all good things. Bush has focused more on the second two than the first. This is a valid strategy. It’s easier and more effective to just cut taxes than try and fix a system that is completely screwed up from top to bottom. It’s easier to cut tax rates than to re-write the entire tax code so that it makes some kind of sense.
We’re talking about a single phrase the president spoke. Don’t overthink it. It’s not like this is a central theme that he based his campaign on or anything.
That’s right. The republican party is made up of 1% mega-rich people, and 99% fools. :rolleyes:
I’ll add a log to your fire, ralph. John Kerry lives (and pays taxes in) Massachussetts. We have a unique option on our state income taxes of choosing our own tax rate. The taxpayer can choose to pay either 5.3% or 5.85%. Kerry pays the lower rate. The most liberal Senator in the country who says that the rich should pay higher taxes, chooses to pay the lower rate.
Also, Teresa Heinz-Kerry doesn’t pay a MA income tax at all.
Once again, both you and ralph are ignoring the obvious. Hell, I’m liberal, but if you give me outs, I’m taking them. You’ll blow a lot of my money on things I don’t want anyway. What we need to do is remove those outs. Taxation is not a voluntary thing in this country, so giving people choices about which rate to pay is ludicrous. Lots of conservatives want a large military, and the ones in power seem to love big governments, are you going to get on them for choosing to pay 5.3% instead of 5.85% also?
This isn’t actually a partisan debate. Democrats and Republicans alike have their programs that they want (they just happen to disagree which programs these are in many cases), and they will both pay as little as they can in income taxes. We need to remove the ability for them to pay less than their fair share, no matter which party they are affiliated with.
Take my taxes that I owe, and let me use my vote to get those taxes used in a way I see fit. Don’t give me an out just because I think you’re using them unwisely. If you want to continue this partisan game, feel free to give more of your money to the IRS than you owe to pay for this stupid war, and give me mine back. I didn’t want the war to begin with.
Well, no, it doesn’t. If you make over 300K yearly, the rate is 35% and it goes down as you make less. As to irony, you wouldn’t recognize it if it bit you on the ass.
And if I knew someone who made over 300K/year, I think it would be in their best interest to pick up a round.
You mean. . .he uses the tax code? Gasp! That cad!
Look, if you want to talk about restructuring the volumes of tax code, then by all means let us begin. Or do you simply want to piss and moan when someone with whom you disagree ideologically uses that tax code as it is written? Either way is all right with me.
Y’know, every time you tell a lie, a little part of Bush fils dies. How horrible of you to wish ill on him.
Right. Of course, “confiscatory levels” have not been reached.
Okay, what portion of Edwards’ “gains” were “ill gotten”?
And I would imagine that someone who goes into the Senate has made sure that all his ducks are in a row inre taxes paid.
I think that’s perfectly reasonable: Liberals who make over $300K a year should pay double taxes, so that rich conservatives can get keep their money, and so that SDMB conservatives don’t call the liberals hypocrites.