# Bush's "The Rich Don't Pay Taxes" Meme **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 10, 2004, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224 "2004-08-10T17:32:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/21 "2004-08-10T22:34:34Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What difference does it make to the rich that they fly in depreciated corporate private jets as opposed to private jets on which they pay property tax? They don’t put this stuff in their own personal names. These things are common knowlege. If you’re filthy rich and want to avoid paying taxes, you form corporations, make yourself Chairman and CEO, avail yourself of all the corporate perks like limousines, jets, and holidays in exotic places while carefully and deliberately creating as much “loss” (in the form of expense) as you can without going broke or cooking the books illegally. Even the not-so-filthy rich do creative things. A mere multi-millionaire, for example, can put a couple of cows in a pasture at the edge of his estate and call his property a “farm”, thereby availing himself of some nifty tax breaks not to mention outright subsidies. Yep, once you’re above a certain level it’s all play and no worries. Just about everything you do is an “expense” to the company. This is why we need a greater level of socialism in this country, to curb such abuses. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/22 "2004-08-11T01:00:21Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I just finished explaining that. They were paying taxes on captial growth. So what they did was shove their money into trusts and “charities” (I use quotes because some of them are 401c3 political organizations that benefit the contributors, who are owed favors by the people they help elect). That way, the didn’t have to pay any taxes until the money was actually spent. Meanwhile, disincentivizing capital growth is a plan too moronic for words. Correct me if I’m wrong, but last time I checked, you couldn’t deduct contributions to political organizations, no matter how rich you were. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/23 "2004-08-11T01:01:38Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I just finished explaining that. No, you finished _stating_ it. You haven’t explained shit. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/24 "2004-08-11T01:14:09Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Are you really that desperate? What, calling you deliberately obtuse? Shit, I could start a Pit thread on instances of that alone, and have more cites on you than I had on Bush in the OP here. Now, OTOH, I’m dumb as a box of rocks to keep on talking with you. But we must both bear that cross. For now. > [@](#): > > Are you honestly that daft? What difference does it make to the rich that they fly in depreciated corporate private jets as opposed to private jets on which they pay property tax? They don’t put this stuff in their own personal names. These things are common knowlege. If you’re filthy rich and want to avoid paying taxes, you form corporations, make yourself Chairman and CEO, avail yourself of all the corporate perks like limousines, jets, and holidays in exotic places while carefully and deliberately creating as much “loss” (in the form of expense) as you can without going broke or cooking the books illegally. Even the not-so-filthy rich do creative things. A mere multi-millionaire, for example, can put a couple of cows in a pasture at the edge of his estate and call his property a “farm”, thereby availing himself of some nifty tax breaks not to mention outright subsidies. So, if they are all avoiding all their taxes, why was it so important to them to get their rates lowered back in 2001? And why did it considerably reduce Federal tax revenues? You can spout all you want about this nonsense (and yes, I’ve read David Cay Johnston’s terribly-referenced book, or as much of it as I could stand before getting tired of yelling, _Cite??_ one more time) > [@](#): > > Cite for what, that a tax on income is a tax on capital growth? […knocking on your forehead…] Anyone in there? I’ve been wondering that about you. Defining all income as capital growth simply renders the term ‘capital growth’ meaningless, along with the term ‘capital’ itself. Just like your use of ‘tyrannical’ rendered that word meaningless, too, since it applied to pretty much any government action not unanimously supported by the citizenry. Words are useful only when they apply to one thing but not another. As soon as they apply to everything, they become meaningless. > [@](#): > > The trusts scrupulously avoid earning income. Neverthess, the depositors maintain ownership of the capital. If you believe that top accounting and corporate legal firms do not understand intimately how to manipulate these things, you are hopelessly naive. I love the way you put words in my mouth, Lib. But what I said earlier applies. And as your cite points out, these things aren’t legal, and a subsequent Administration might actually try to enforce the tax laws. The Kerry campaign noted earlier this year that better enforcement of laws applying to the upper echelons might result in hundreds of billions more revenue, without a change in the tax laws. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/25 "2004-08-11T10:10:36Z")
> [@RT](#): > > What, calling you deliberately obtuse? Shit, I could start a Pit thread on instances of that alone, and have more cites on you than I had on Bush in the OP here. Yes you could, I suppose. But you chose instead an avenue of petty sloth. > [@](#): > > Now, OTOH, I’m dumb as a box of rocks to keep on talking with you. Yes, indeed you are. > [@](#): > > So, if they are all avoiding all their taxes, why was it so important to them to get their rates lowered back in 2001? It was important to everyone. I realize that, as a leftist, you believe that jobs and new industry come from heaven like manna. For you, entrepreneurship and capital investment are evil things because Marx has told you that they are oppressive. > [@](#): > > And why did it considerably reduce Federal tax revenues? 😃 Because it’s _supposed_ to. If you steal less money, you have less money in your pockets. The idea is that you steal less _and then spend less_. But rightists have become indistinguishable from leftsists with respect to the economy. You both seek to expand the power and scope of government while micromanaging everyone else’s lives. You are compelled by the nature of your character to destroy, like pigs at a banquet, who tear down the table in order to get at the food. > [@](#): > > You can spout all you want about this nonsense (and yes, I’ve read David Cay Johnston’s terribly-referenced book, or as much of it as I could stand before getting tired of yelling, Cite?? one more time) I am not familiar with David Cay Johnston. > [@](#): > > I’ve been wondering that about you. Defining all income as capital growth simply renders the term ‘capital growth’ meaningless, along with the term ‘capital’ itself. Just like your use of ‘tyrannical’ rendered that word meaningless, too, since it applied to pretty much any government action not unanimously supported by the citizenry. Red herring. Changing the subject won’t help your argument. Any time money is made, someone profits and overall capital is increased. Captial growth is an increase in the value of share holdings. If capital growth is taxed, then an investor derives less income. Likewise, if an investor’s income is taxed, he has less to offer for shares. > [@](#): > > Words are useful only when they apply to one thing but not another. As soon as they apply to everything, they become meaningless. Which is exactly what you are doing with words like “idiot” when you apply them to everything Bush does from invading sovereign nations to mispronouncing a word. You have weakened your arguments against him by dwelling on piddly shit like your OP, not to mention the thread where you invited all and sundry to participate in bashing him for things that you believed did not merit even so much as a Pit thread. You are doing a disservice to Kerry by crying wolf so often that your bellyaching has come to signify nothing more than the fact that you’re obsessed. Seeing yet another Bush thread from you is like seeing yet another attack from SwiftVets. One already knows before one looks that the complaint is petty, mean spirited, and exaggerated. Moderate and reasonable leftists have become tired of it, and if you are not careful, your net effect will be to alienate undecided people who will become so suspicious of you that your condemnations will begin to constitute endorsements just as if a klansman attacked Obama. > [@](#): > > And as your cite points out, these things aren’t legal, and a subsequent Administration might actually try to enforce the tax laws. That’s what happens when you speed read — you miss words like “often” and “may”. There is nothing illegal about pure trusts. If there were, a lot of politicians and powerful people would be in jail. It is only illegal to use these trusts as a means of escaping income tax. But if they make no income, then they are avoiding no income tax. It is the method by which wealthy people stuff their money under mattresses. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/26 "2004-08-11T13:05:30Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > And I think it ultimately goes beyond that - to attempt to brainwash the American people to think there’s no point in taxing the rich, period. After all, his ‘base’ is the haves and have-mores, and he’s got to protect them. I think you’re way off-base with this; I think it’s a jab at the Kerrys and their wealth. Between them, George Soros, and Baffleck and co. in Hollywood, there’s a fairly substantial “have more” base on the Democratic side. > [@](#): > > …One is the SUV deduction: if you have your own business, and you buy an SUV whose weight is \>6000 lbs., and you use it more for business than personal use, you get to deduct the entire cost of the vehicle, in the year you buy it. Why? I dunno. Because the law was originally written with industrial/farm equipment in mind and (IIRC) predates the release of monstrous SUVs that actually fit the category (I think the old Suburban was \<6000 lbs, the new model is 7K lbs). Somewhat of a hijack- I know that technically you could use the 6000+ lbs on a SUV, but has anyone actually taken advantage of the loophole? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/27 "2004-08-11T13:23:28Z")
> [@Lib the Deliberately Obtuse](#): > > > [@RT](#): > > > > What, calling you deliberately obtuse? Shit, I could start a Pit thread on instances of that alone, and have more cites on you than I had on Bush in the OP here. > > Yes you could, I suppose. But you chose instead an avenue of petty sloth. Yeah, well, you’re really not worth the extra effort. Besides, we’re already in the Pit. > [@Lib who knows what other people think](#): > > I realize that, as a leftist, you believe that jobs and new industry come from heaven like manna. For you, entrepreneurship and capital investment are evil things because Marx has told you that they are oppressive. Nonsense. Neither Groucho, Chico, nor Harpo has spoken on the subject. > [@](#): > > I am not familiar with David Cay Johnston. You were doing what looked like a close paraphrase of his book _Perfectly Legal_, so I assumed that was your source. My apologies. > [@](#): > > Which is exactly what you are doing with words like “idiot” when you apply them to everything Bush does from invading sovereign nations to mispronouncing a word. You are mistaken in this. I have on occasion, even fairly recently, [spoken approvingly](http://65.201.198.9/sdmb/showthread.php?t=258007) of things Bush has said or done. > [@](#): > > You have weakened your arguments against him by dwelling on piddly shit like your OP You are welcome to your opinion of what is piddly shit. I thought it was rather significant. If the President of the United States has the attitude that if rich people weasel out of taxes, it’s really no big deal, and just means you shouldn’t bother trying to tax them at all, I think people should know that. If you don’t think so, it seems to actually undercut everything you’ve been saying in this thread, since you’re much more alarmist than I am about the ability of rich people to avoid taxes. > [@](#): > > not to mention the thread where you invited all and sundry to participate in bashing him for things that you believed did not merit even so much as a Pit thread. Many people had complained about the number of Bush-bashing threads; I’m sorry my attempt at consolidation upset you. FWIW, my point was that Bush had effectively moved the goalposts: in a year of Abu Ghraib and outing al-Qaeda moles, stuff that would under more normal circumstances rate its own Pit thread just doesn’t quite make the cut anymore, but it might still deserve mention here. > [@](#): > > You are doing a disservice to Kerry by crying wolf so often that your bellyaching has come to signify nothing more than the fact that you’re obsessed. Oh, good, a substantive allegation. How often have I cried ‘wolf’ lately? Manny made some criticisms awhile back, I took them to heart, and so please point out the times since then that I’ve cried ‘wolf’. Link, and explain, please. > [@](#): > > Moderate and reasonable leftists have become tired of it I’m sure you can back that up too. Go for it. > [@](#): > > and if you are not careful, your net effect will be to alienate undecided people who will become so suspicious of you that your condemnations will begin to constitute endorsements just as if a klansman attacked Obama. Since this comes from Mr. Careful himself, I think I’ll just consider the source. > [@Lib the Deliberately Obtuse](#): > > That’s what happens when you speed read — you miss words like “often” and “may”. There is nothing illegal about pure trusts. If there were, a lot of politicians and powerful people would be in jail. It is only illegal to use these trusts as a means of escaping income tax. Which was my point. You might want to be more careful in the future, or people might not bother reading you. > [@](#): > > But if they make no income, then they are avoiding no income tax. It is the method by which wealthy people stuff their money under mattresses. You may not be aware of this, Lib, but the tax on zero dollars of income is zero, regardless of its location - be it in a pure trust, or in a literal mattress. > [@Lib](#): > > > [@RT](#): > > > > Now, OTOH, I’m dumb as a box of rocks to keep on talking with you. > > Yes, indeed you are. Well, I ain’t too old to learn. Seeya. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/28 "2004-08-11T13:28:45Z")
[RTF Snipped] No…you’re missing the point. If you raise taxes on the rich, they’ll dodge them and someone else will have to pick up the slack. Therefore, raising taxes for the rich is actually raising taxes for everyone BUT the rich. Ergo (since I already said “therefore”), lowering taxes for the rich means lowering taxes for everyone. It’s the exact opposite of ‘trickle-down economics’. Kind of ‘double-anti-trickle-up taxes’. Duh. -Joe, is not Joe, unless it’s convenient for him to be Joe, but it probably isn’t, so he’s not. Or something. ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/29 "2004-08-11T14:04:05Z")
It seems to me that questions about how much tax the rich are actually able to avoid paying are beside the point of the OP. Please tell me if I’m reading it wrong, but I think the OP wants to hold Bush’s transparently illogical statements up to ridicule. And if he doesn’t, I do. First of all, as has been mentioned, if the rich are so good at avoiding taxes, why did he need to give them a tax cut in the first place? The answer is that, for all the loopholes that exist, they [do pay most of the tax that gets paid in this country.](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_139.html) Whether they should pay more, or less, or not at all, or whatever… that’s another debate entirely. Second of all, is he actually saying that rolling back the tax cuts will decrease revenue? That’s what it sounds like! The \*(il)\*logic seems to be thus:[ol] [li]John Kerry wants to raise taxes on the rich[/li][li]Rich people are good at finding ways to pay less in taxes[/li][li]John Kerry’s tax hike for the rich will cause them to increase the amount of taxes they might be able to avoid paying[/li][li]John Kerry’s tax hike for the rich will cause the rich to pay less in taxes[/li][li]John Kerry will cause the middle class to pay more in taxes to make up for the lost revenue that resulted from his raising taxes on the rich[/li][/ol] Now, you could say “Well, there’s a more abstract cost to raising taxes on the rich, in the form of less job creation, less reinvestment in the economy, etc. The middle and lower classes could end up paying for that in ways John Kerry doesn’t expect.” Maybe, maybe not. But as **RTFirefly** pointed out, _that’s not what the President said!!!_ > [@](#): > > When they say, “tax the rich,” those are the folks who have got the accountants to see to it they don’t pay tax, so guess who gets stuck with the bill? You’re going to get stuck with the bill. The worst thing for job creation is to be running up the taxes on the working people of this country. And we’re not going to let him have a chance to do so. What the screaming fuck? Taxing the rich makes working people pay more taxes? How exactly would that work? Rich guy calls his accountant, “Hello, Sid? Yeah, I need you to find me a way to pay less taxes than last year. Yes, I know John Kerry has raised taxes on people in my income bracket, but you know us rich people. We only pay the taxes we feel like paying. And this year, I feel like paying even less. That’ll teach Kerry to raise my taxes! BUWAHAHAHAHA!” Two years into John Kerry’s term, every American earning less than $200,000/yr. gets a letter in the mail: > [@](#): > > Dear Middle/Lower Class American: > > You may remember that, when I took office, I rolled back the previous administration’s tax cuts for rich people. I thought it would increase revenues and help up pay down some of our astronomical debt. > > However, perhaps due to a wizard casting a spell, rich people have used tax shelters in such creative and magical ways that they now pay _less than they did before I raised their taxes._ > > Therefore, I must raise your taxes to make up for it. Please enclose a check for five percent of your annual gross income in the enclosed pre-addressed envelope and return. Do not forget to attach a first-class stamp. Thank you, and God bless America. > > Sincerely, > John Kerry Amen. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/30 "2004-08-11T15:41:00Z")
> [@Mojo](#): > > I think you’re way off-base with this; I think it’s a jab at the Kerrys and their wealth. Between them, George Soros, and Baffleck and co. in Hollywood, there’s a fairly substantial “have more” base on the Democratic side. There are, and always have been, “limousine liberals”; but if you’re making a claim about relative representation of “have mores” in the two parties, you need to back it up somehow. (Polls, campaign contributions, whatever.) > [@](#): > > Because the law was originally written with industrial/farm equipment in mind and (IIRC) predates the release of monstrous SUVs that actually fit the category (I think the old Suburban was \<6000 lbs, the new model is 7K lbs). Parts of the law were written before the 1990s; parts of it were revised as recently as last year. The big change in 2003 was raising the ceiling from $25K to $100K on how much of the purchase price could be deducted immediately as an investment in equipment. (The rest could already be depreciated over 5 years.) > [@](#): > > Somewhat of a hijack- I know that technically you could use the 6000+ lbs on a SUV, but has anyone actually taken advantage of the loophole? Here’s a [list of vehicles that qualify](http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/biz_tips/20030403b1.asp). Suffice it to say that those potentially eligible to use this break are being made aware of it. ---
**Author:** ![Gest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9d8465/32.png) [@Gest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gest)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/31 "2004-08-11T15:43:10Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’d be in favor of eliminated all deductions and loopholes, except one standard deduction used as a floor, below which income is not taxed. At that point, one could have a more intelligent discussion about tax rates. As it is, people of similar incomes can pay vastly different taxes, depending on how creative they want to get with loopholes. This strikes me as an incredibly populist position and yet I don’t hear a lot of people suggesting it? When it is brought up, where does the opposition to it come from? I’m thinking conservatives would generally hate it on understandable grounds of self-interest but what do liberals have to say about it? Aside from cynical accusations that the liberal elite are pigs at the trough as much as conservatives, what are their stated reasons for opposing this kind of reform? > [@](#): > > I do a LOT of it myself, but would gladly give up that advantage for a fairer, straightforward tax structure. I’d be several thousand dollars worse off each year (assuming unchanged tax rates) but I do well enough and I’d be more than willing to sacrifice a little for fairness for all. I might even come out even depending on what the rates were dropped to. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/32 "2004-08-11T15:48:35Z")
**cuauhtomec** - exactly. Thanks for bringing this thread back to its intended subject! ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/33 "2004-08-11T15:58:18Z")
No problem, **RTFirefly**. Why, oh why did my parents saddle me with the hard-to-spell name of **cuauhtemoc**? ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/34 "2004-08-11T16:30:48Z")
> [@Mojo](#): > > Somewhat of a hijack- I know that technically you could use the 6000+ lbs on a SUV, but has anyone actually taken advantage of the loophole? Meet [Karl Wizinsky](http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/0212/18/c01-38875.htm): > [@](#): > > Karl Wizinsky wasn’t thinking about buying a new vehicle, and certainly not a big SUV. So why is there a brand-new $47,000 Ford Excursion sitting in his driveway? > > He was able to write off $32,000 of the purchase price as a business expense. > > “We really did it because it was a pretty hefty deduction,” said Wizinsky, a health care consultant in Novi. I know his son, who sings in a local art-punk band, and thinks the whole thing is pretty crass. “Hi everybody! My Dad’s a great big jackass!” ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/35 "2004-08-11T16:34:58Z")
I forgot to add that here in Cincinnati, the local Hummer dealers advertise the writeoff in their commercials on the local Neandertalk station. First time I heard one, I called the dealership and let them know that they were welcome to give me a free hummer of a different kind. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/36 "2004-08-11T20:41:44Z")
> [@RT](#): > > Yeah, well, you’re really not worth the extra effort. Besides, we’re already in the Pit. Then why did you bring it up? You made the otherwise irrelevant assertion that you had the ability to start a thread. If it isn’t worth the effort, why is it worth the mention? Is your intention nothing more than to incite, provoke, and tease just to see how I will respond? > [@](#): > > Nonsense. Neither Groucho, Chico, nor Harpo has spoken on the subject. As you know, I meant Karl Marx. He was the enemy of liberalism. Ludwig Von Mises wrote, “The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production… All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand”. Marx, on the other hand wrote, “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” > [@](#): > > You were doing what looked like a close paraphrase of his book Perfectly Legal, so I assumed that was your source. My apologies. I accept your apology. Please attempt to keep your wits about you in future. > [@](#): > > You are mistaken in this. I have on occasion, even fairly recently, spoken approvingly of things Bush has said or done. I think you misspelled “sarcastically”. > [@](#): > > You are welcome to your opinion of what is piddly shit. I thought it was rather significant. If the President of the United States has the attitude that if rich people weasel out of taxes, it’s really no big deal, and just means you shouldn’t bother trying to tax them at all, I think people should know that. But that is a misrepresentation of his position. You’re affirmating the consequent, which is a logical fallacy. His position is that because the wealthy can successfully dodge taxes _legally_, the rest of us have to pay because the government still continues to spend money. > [@](#): > > If you don’t think so, it seems to actually undercut everything you’ve been saying in this thread, since you’re much more alarmist than I am about the ability of rich people to avoid taxes. I doubt seriously that you’re paying any attention at all to what I’m saying. I’m not calling you out for a debate; you have no position from which TO debate. I’m exposing your nonsense for the sake of the general record. > [@](#): > > Many people had complained about the number of Bush-bashing threads; I’m sorry my attempt at consolidation upset you. Everybody knows you made no such attempt. If you had made any actual attempt at consolidation, this OP would be in that thread, as would others you have written. > [@](#): > > FWIW, my point was that Bush had effectively moved the goalposts: in a year of Abu Ghraib and outing al-Qaeda moles, stuff that would under more normal circumstances rate its own Pit thread just doesn’t quite make the cut anymore, but it might still deserve mention here. The al-Qaeda mole (singular) was outed by the New York Times. And it isn’t Bush who is moving any goalposts. His tyranny has been steadfast and predictable. The goalposts are being moved by you. > [@](#): > > Oh, good, a substantive allegation. How often have I cried ‘wolf’ lately? Manny made some criticisms awhile back, I took them to heart, and so please point out the times since then that I’ve cried ‘wolf’. Link, and explain, please. This very thread. Bush has made a point that is common knowledge, and you have wasted bandwidth in order to stir up a tempest in a teapot. > [@](#): > > I’m sure you can back that up too. Go for it. Perhaps if you would read as many Pit threads as you generate, you would notice. Here is one recently started by Leaper, [Okay, even I’m getting somewhat tired of all the repetitious anti-Bush threads…](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266852). > [@](#): > > Since this comes from Mr. Careful himself, I think I’ll just consider the source. I’m sure you will. Logical fallacies are your specialty. > [@](#): > > Which was my point. You might want to be more careful in the future, or people might not bother reading you. Then your expository skills need serious work. The point you actually _made_ was “And as your cite points out, these things aren’t legal, and a subsequent Administration might actually try to enforce the tax laws.” Pure trusts, in fact _are_ legal. > [@](#): > > You may not be aware of this, Lib, but the tax on zero dollars of income is zero, regardless of its location - be it in a pure trust, or in a literal mattress. That’s the whole point that Bush is making, you dufus. You are, in effect, pitting yourself. > [@](#): > > Well, I ain’t too old to learn. Seeya. It has nothing to do with your age, and everything to do with a conscious decision you’ve made to cover your eyes and ears. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/37 "2004-08-12T01:27:09Z")
> [@black455](#): > > Meet [Karl Wizinsky](http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/0212/18/c01-38875.htm) I had assumed that this was one of those things that everybody talked about but nobody actually followed through on. One day I hope to see one of these tools filling up their Hummer while wearing nothing but a barrel with suspenders due to current gas prices. I was sorta right about the reason ("Tax experts say the light-truck tax loophole was originally targeted for farmers, so their working pickup trucks would not be treated, for tax purposes, like luxury cars. ") but wrong about most everything else. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > There are, and always have been, “limousine liberals”; but if you’re making a claim about relative representation of “have mores” in the two parties, you need to back it up somehow. (Polls, campaign contributions, whatever.) No, I can’t. I was just pointing that out to rebut the “After all, his ‘base’ is the haves and have-mores” from the OP. There’s a hell of a lot of people in the “red states” who are poor and voted for Bush. Especially in the South. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/38 "2004-08-12T10:12:21Z")
> [@Mojo](#): > > I was just pointing that out to rebut the “After all, his ‘base’ is the haves and have-mores” from the OP. There’s a hell of a lot of people in the “red states” who are poor and voted for Bush. Especially in the South. Well, yeah, Bush has plenty of support among evangelical Christians (and those who grew up and remain in the culture, even if they aren’t ECs themselves), regardless of economic level. But you **can’t** rebut the statement about Bush’s base being the haves and have-mores; Bush actually said that. Speaking of things he’s said, he went with the meme [one more time](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040811-6.html) yesterday: > [@](#): > > You know what else I think? You know what else I think when they say, tax the rich? Most rich people are able to avoid taxes, and if you can’t raise enough money from taxing the rich, guess who pays the taxes? Yes, you do. But we’re not going to let him. That’s what this campaign is about, to make sure we’ve got good tax policy. And, just as a variation on a theme: > [@](#): > > when you hear my opponent talking about taxing the rich, that means running up the rate, the high rates, he’s really taxing small businesses. And if the rich are able to weasel out of paying taxes, guess who’s lent [a big helping hand](http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45142)? > [@](#): > > In 2003, an underfunded IRS pursued only 18 percent of the abusive tax shelter cases uncovered by IRS agents. As recently as March 30, the IRS Oversight Board released a special report imploring Congress to go beyond the president’s 2005 budget request of a 4.6 percent increase in funding for IRS and detailing what it identified as a consistent underfunding of tax enforcement activities during the Bush administration. Despite the 4.6 percent increase, the report found that IRS’s enforcement capability would still continue to decrease for the fourth year in a row because the increase inexplicably ignored $230 million in expected cost increases related to pay raises and other required expenses. The report also found that the Bush budget for the IRS would lead to about a half-million unresolved delinquent tax cases and create a national tax gap of $311 billion or 65 percent of the projected 2004 budget deficit. > > Yet the Bush administration was able to find room in its 2004 budget to dramatically increase funding for compliance with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low-income families. The Bush budget requested a 68.5 percent increase in EITC enforcement, despite the fact that EITC avoidance represents only 2.8 percent of the overall uncollected tax gap. It always helps if you have the power to make your prophecies self-fulfilling. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2004, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/39 "2004-08-12T10:56:27Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > And if the rich are able to weasel out of paying taxes, guess who’s lent a big helping hand? But Ms. Butts, the lawyer who wrote the aritcle, admits that “the more recent corporate tax shortfalls may reflect a weaker economy at the beginning of 21st century”. Moreover, she seems to have at least as big a beef with Clinton as she has with Bush: > [@](#): > > The news that more than 60 percent of U.S. corporations failed to pay any federal taxes from 1996 through 2000 when corporate profits were soaring and that corporate tax receipts had fallen to just 7.4 percent of overall federal tax revenue in 2003 – the lowest since 1983 and the second-lowest rate since 1934 – is an outrage. If she’s right, 6 out of 10 US corporations paid no tax during Clinton’s second term. Could you link us to the Pit thread where you ranted about that? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2004, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224/40 "2004-08-13T12:29:56Z")
Not as much as they used to, thanks to Bush’s tax cuts, but [they undoubtedly pay taxes](http://billmon.org/archives/001326.html): > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON - Since 2001, President Bush’s tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign. > > The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent. > > Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent. That’s the part that’s germane to this discussion. I’ll quote some more stuff, simply because it’s interestiong: > [@](#): > > The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers – whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 – saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent. > > Republican aides on Capitol Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the tax cuts actually made federal income taxes – as opposed to total taxes – more equitable. > [@](#): > > The tax cuts this year will boost the income of millionaires by 10.1 percent, while middle-income families see a boost of 2.3 percent, the Democrats said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-the-rich-dont-pay-taxes-meme/259224.md?page=3)