# Why should I vote for Bush? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2004, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490 "2004-01-15T01:00:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2004, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/101 "2004-02-21T00:54:17Z")
**Rjung** you have gone off the deep end with your conspiracy theories. Let’s address a couple of things. G.W. Bush has many duties as President. I am sure you are familiar with them. He hasn’t gotten around to becoming a federal prosecutor yet. As such he has no say as to whether or not Ken Lay is indicted. I’m sure that he could influence that if he so chose. Politically that would be suicidal. Though I am ready to believe many things about our current President, I will need actual evidence for this one. Any pressure the White House exerts on the prosectors would be deeply resented (as it should be), and would long ago have been leaked to the media. The Enron case takes a long time because it is incredibly complicated. Though they appear to have the documents, the prosecution needs witnesses to testify. They brought down Fastow, who will testify against Skilling. Skilling will cave and will testify against Lay. This is how things are done and always will be done. Without witnesses the jury will not convict. I work in the financial industry and I would have trouble understanding the maneuvers Enron used to defraud investors based on documents alone. > [@](#): > > That’s why Martha Steward is getting all the headlines these days. Why go after ol’ buddy ol’ pal Kenny Boy when you can throw someone else into the shark pit? This is beyond the pale, and into the neighborhood of dementia. You are seriously suggesting that Bush controls the media like Stalin’s twerpy, slightly goofy younger brother. He decided that Martha Stewart should be prosecuted to divert attention from Ken Lay. That can’t really be what you are saying. Martha Stewart is being prosecuted because she is probably guilty. People pay attention because she is a celebrity. Not 1 in 10,000 Americans could pick Andy Fastow out of a lineup. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2004, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/102 "2004-02-21T02:54:02Z")
Why should I vote for Bush? 1. He made the world safe for Hailburtocracy. 2. He successfully raised state and city taxes, especially NY State and City income taxes, to a level that more than negates the federal tax cuts. 3. He has potentially created an aristocracy with the adocacy of the elimination of the estate tax. 4. He is the first president whose assistant says that transferring jobs out of the country isa good thing. I vote for Bush to be president–of Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2004, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/103 "2004-02-21T03:38:35Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Because daily news reports about the latest trials and tribulations of “Kenneth Lay, close personal friend of President Bush” would not look good to Karl Rove. That would be more than offset by news reports that “Bush DOJ throws book at former Bush acquiantance.” No serious person believes that Bush had anything to do personally with Enron’s collapse – the charge seems to be guilt by association – and laying the smackdown on Lay would prove a powerful rebuttal to notions that Bush is a puppet on a string. > [@rjung](#): > > That’s why Martha Steward is getting all the headlines these days. Why go after ol’ buddy ol’ pal Kenny Boy when you can throw someone else into the shark pit? Man, Alcoa must love you for your voracious consumption of tin foil. Martha Stewart is a celebrity. She gets media attention for the same reason Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez get media attention – she is a famous person. Lay, Skilling and Fastow, for all the attention they recieve in the business pages and occasionally on the front pages, have nowhere near that level of fame. You seem to be implying that every federal prosecutor in the White Collar Crime division should be pulled from whatever cases they’re working on and thrown at Enron – i.e., that Stewart should get a pass, or at least a delay, until every Enron executive is wearing an orange jumpsuit. Which is absurd. We have plenty of federal prosecutors, more than enough to handle both cases. Indeed, two separate offices are handling the two cases – Stewart is being prosecuted in New York, while the Enron case is being prosecuted in Houston. It isn’t like manpower is being diverted to handle the Stewart case. Those New York prosecutors wouldn’t be working on Enron if it weren’t for Stewart – they’d be working on other cases centered in the Northeast. > [@rjung](#): > > I’m not convinced that the indictments against Fastow and Skilling have been moving with all due speed, myself. I see. And your vast experience with white collar crime prosecutions enables you to make a meaningful judgment on this? Or are you just talking out of your ass? These cases take _years_ to develop. I recall reading a couple of months ago about indictments finally being brought against investment banks for wrongdoing dating back to well before Bush took office. If you really want to see the Enron folks behind bars, you’d be _glad_ that it’s taking time – because that means the prosecutors are doing their best to carefully put together an airtight case. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2004, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/104 "2004-02-21T03:46:32Z")
> [@capacitor](#): > > 1. He successfully raised state and city taxes, especially NY State and City income taxes, to a level that more than negates the federal tax cuts. The hell? Bush can’t affect state and local tax levels. Your complaints are properly directed to Messrs. Pataki and Bloomberg and their lawmaking brethren. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2004, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/105 "2004-02-21T04:57:26Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > The hell? Bush can’t affect state and local tax levels. While he may not be able to directly raise them, he can certainly affect them. And, affect them he has by giving minimal aid to the states during their current funding crises and putting new unfunded mandates and pressures on them (e.g., in regard to homeland security). Then, when the states raise taxes or fees (such as tuition) and the net result is that the poor and middle class see most of their tax cuts erased, hey, that’s not Bush’s fault, right? Why, noone ever could have predicted that! Shocking…Who would have thunk it!?! But don’t worry, since the state and local taxes are usually way, way more regressive than the federal income tax and estate tax, you don’t have to lie awake nights worrying about the plight of the rich…They’ll still come out well ahead, thank goodness! ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2004, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/106 "2004-02-21T14:00:49Z")
I’ll grant you the unfunded mandates part – the federal government should pay for their own programs – but the rest of your post is utter rubbish. The states that have funding crises need to handle their budgetary problems themselves – the federal government is not obliged to bail them out, nor should they as that would create a disincentive for responsible management of state finances. And if state and local taxes are regressive, that’s the fault of the individual state in question. Why aren’t you complaining that, say, New York hasn’t made its tax scheme more progressive as part of its efforts to pay its bills? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/107 "2004-02-21T22:14:00Z")
Well, I am all for more progressive state taxes but the reality of the situation is that state taxes have always been more regressive. Part of the reason is probably that there is more of a “race to the bottom” competition between states because they worry that if they tax rich people too much, the rich people will move elsewhere. And, I think conservatives know this which is one reason why they like to devolve responsibilities more to the state level (and also regulatory laws, like environmental ones). I think when you are President, you have a responsibility to deal with the world as it actually exists. (Or, at the very least, Bush could use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to press the states to make their tax structures more progressive.) But, let’s be honest here, he has shown no desire to see that happen and seems completely content on making our tax structure as a whole more regressive. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/108 "2004-02-22T00:22:17Z")
**jshore** We’ve gopne over this several times now. Have you finally found a cite which indicates that state taxes make up for the progrsion of federal taxes? Have you even found a cite to proclaim that states collect enough money to make up for the pregrsivity of federal taxes? I know it is a favorite whipping boy of yours, and that’s cool. But if you have information that state taxes make up for the progressifity of federal taxses can you link to it? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/109 "2004-02-22T01:25:15Z")
> [@fruitbat](#): > > I’m sure that he could influence that if he so chose. Politically that would be suicidal. So would several other things that this presidency has already gotten away with, yet it still chugs on (pity). I don’t want to derail this thread, especially since the only way currently available to prove whether or not Bush has been shielding Ken Lay requires planting listening equipment in the Oval Office, but consider this: to the average layvoter, the _appearance_ of impropriety in the Enron collapse/Kenneth Lay non-indictal/“close pal fo the President” is huge. You don’t need to be a raving conspiracy nut to believe that the President of the United States can throttle the Justice Department to ease up pressure against certain folks and organizations – just look at the total reversal in the Microsoft anti-trust case for an(other) example. And frankly, after four years of this Administration’s mechanations, people are more inclined to believe that Bush _is_ pulling in favors for “Kenny boy” – heaven knows he’s done it in the past, and he’s certainly not above doing it now. > [@](#): > > You are seriously suggesting that Bush controls the media like Stalin’s twerpy, slightly goofy younger brother. Nah, but the media’s toothless approach to Presidential coverage is a travesty to the memory of Edward R. Murrow. The simple fact that the White House was able to sell a pre-emptive war with Iraq – even when facts contradicting the Administration’s case were publically available months before the bombs fell – is proof enough that today’s American media is satisfied with unquestioning acceptance of whatever the White House dishes out. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_Serpentine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@Silver\_Serpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_Serpentine)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/110 "2004-02-22T02:10:12Z")
Okay. I’m really gonna try to remove my own political bias out of what I’m about to post. I’m going to try to remove everything I’ve read on here and in books. I’m going to try to think like someone who only pays attention to politics as far as what I see around me, and what I watch on the news. In other words, it’s probably going to be mis-informed, simplistic, and inaccurate. But I’m trying to see things like an Average Voter would. Not as someone who spends way too much time on this boards, reading all these cited things and research. Okay? Don’t call me stupid for them, because they’re not the views I’ve come to. Thanks! 😃 **Pro-Bush** Saddam was a bad guy, we got him out of there. And it didn’t take long to do. Taliban’s out of power, right? I’ve sat here for 10 minutes, trying to think up more things. I swear I have, they just haven’t occured to me. **Anti-Bush** A lot of my friends have become unemployed. I’ve actually had to move across the country to find a job. I never saw any of that tax cut you heard so much about. I keep seeing factories shut down due to lack of moola, or to go overseas. This seems like a bad thing for my friends and I. No WMDs. Not a big deal, since we DID get Saddam out of there. No Osama. I keep hearing something about a credibility gap, and something about him going AWOL during some kind of military service. **I don’t care** This are things I figure aren’t a big focus for me, as an Average Voter. Don’t directly apply to me. Gay marriage. Abortion. Environment. * * * I hope I did a decent job of being neutral. I didn’t toss out any “Bush is lying” or whatnot. I don’t often have to play Apathetic, Non-Political Voter. * * * -Irish, formerly AnimistDragon. Where did my sig go? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/111 "2004-02-22T19:58:26Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > **jshore** We’ve gopne over this several times now. Have you finally found a cite which indicates that state taxes make up for the progrsion of federal taxes? Have you even found a cite to proclaim that states collect enough money to make up for the pregrsivity of federal taxes? I know it is a favorite whipping boy of yours, and that’s cool. But if you have information that state taxes make up for the progressifity of federal taxses can you link to it? **pervert** , I don’t think I have specifically claimed that the state taxes completely make up for the progressivity of the federal taxes. What I have noted is that the federal taxes are considerably less progressive once you go from looking at only federal income taxes to looking at all federal taxes. What I have further noted is that the progressivity in the tax structure as a whole is further reduced once you add the generally regressive state and local tax structures in so that the structure is “fairly flat”. There may still be some progressivity. That is unclear and likely depends on various assumptions. (E.g., I think most economists argue that the employer contribution to FICA is essentially a tax on the employees since it is really exactly equivalent to a situation where the employer pays about 7% more salary to the employee and the employee then pays all the tax. But my impression is that the CBO study considers only the employee contribution as counting toward what the employee pays in taxes…Is that right?) That said, here is some of what a book I have called “What Government Can Do” by Benjamin Page and James Simmons (copyright 2000) says about studies of the overall tax structure: > [@](#): > > When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken together, they apparently do not have much net effect on income inequality in the United States. The progressivity of federal (and, to some degree, state) income taxes, together with the milder progressivity of the small and declining property and corporate income taxes, is largely offset by the regressivity of payroll, sales and, excise taxes. > > Pechman and Okner’s classic study, which considered eight different sets of incidence assumptions about the various taxes, found that in 1966, even under the most progressive (“1c”) assumptions, the total effective rates of all taxes were nearly porportional over most of the income range…The effective rates then climbed substantially at the top, reaching 49.3 percent on income over $1 million. Under the least progressive (“3b”) assumptions, there was virtually no progressivity at all — effective rates sent from 28.1 percent at the very lowest incomes to 29.0 percent on the vary highest, with a bit of a dip in the rates for middle-income people [88] … > > Pechman’s updates of these estimates over the next two decades showed little change except right at the end of the period he studied, in 1985. In that year, at the peak of Reaganism, any progressivity in U.S. taxes had almost completely vanished. Even under the most optimistic incidence assumptions, effective rates rose from 21.9 percent on the first income decile to just 25.5 percent on the top 1 percent of incomes. Under the least progressive assumptions, the tax system had become significantly regressive [89]. > > Presumably some of the earlier modest progressivity of the system has been restored by post-1985 changes in federal tax law. On the other hand, the increasing reliance on payroll and sales taxes, and the shift from federal toward state and local spending and taxing, does not bode well for tax progressivity. A number of states during the 1990s appear to have made their taxes more regressive, often by raising sales taxes during years of economic stringency and then cutting income–rather than sales–taxes during better times [90]. > > Fullerton and Roger’s lifetime-income findings are quite similar to those of the original Pechman and Okner annual-income study. They found that overall U.S. taxes are roughly proportional across middle-income groups, though progessive at the very bottom and at the very top of the income distribution… [91] … The references here are: [88] J.A. Pechman and B.A. Okner, “Who Bears the Tax Burden?” (Brookings, 1974). [89] J.A. Pechman, “Who Paid the Taxes, 1966-1985,” (Brookings, 1985). [90] N. Johnson and I. J. Lav, “Are State Taxes Becoming More Regressive?” (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1997). [91] D. Fullerton and D. L. Rogers, “Who Bears the Lifetime Tax Burden?” (Brookings, 1993). As I also noted, one expects the total tax burden to become more regressive under the Bush tax cuts…And, my guess is that the changes may be particularly dramatic near the very top because of the lowered tax rates on dividends and capital gains. If you look, for example, at George W.'s tax returns from the late 90s (I don’t know if they have released more recent ones since then), you’ll see that is where he gets most of his income and I think this is true of many very wealthy people. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/112 "2004-02-22T21:38:43Z")
I’m not an American voter. The economy’s not booming, but it’s doing ok so that’s a wash. Bush has shown that he’s stepped up to the mark and done the right thing after 9/11. If I were an American voter I’d be asking myself if the other candidates would do similarly. Kerry’s voting record is too erratic. I don’t know about the others. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/113 "2004-02-23T02:00:53Z")
Yesterday, I bought **“Perfectly Legal”, by David Cay Johnston** who is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times. The subtitle of this book is “The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich – And Cheat Everybody Else.” I didn’t start reading it tonight and so far have just read the first chapter but it is already a doozy! Here are some things that Johnston claims looking at the tax returns of the 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. (in other words, the top tiny fraction of 1%!): (1) In 2000, they paid federal income tax at an effective rate of 22.2 percent of their reported income, as compared to the rate of 15.3 percent for the average person. In fact, this 22.2% rate was about the same as that paid by a single person making $123,000 or a married couple with 2 children earning $226,000. (2) This rate they paid dropped by 16 percent between 1992 to 2000 (from 26.4% to 22.2%) while the rate paid by the average taxpayer rose by 18 percent (from 13% to 15.3%) during that time period. (3) Had all the Bush tax cuts passed through last year been in effect in 2000, these richest 400 would have paid only 17.5% effective tax rate…not much more than the 15.3% rate paid by the average American. Note that these facts deal only with the income tax…Once you factor in the payroll taxes (and other federal taxes), I assume you’d see these folks paying a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than do average folks! And, another major point of Johnston’s book is that the superrich are very likely hiding income from taxation using stealthy tax schemes that those who can’t afford such good tax lawyers and accountants would have to show, so this tax rate on their reported income is probably overestimating the tax rate they pay on their true income! So, are federal taxes progressive? Well, at the very top it looks like it may not be at all! And, that’s before adding state taxes into the mix! You can also hear an [interview](http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?displayValue=day&todayDate=01/07/2004) with David Cay Johnston on NPR’s Fresh Air. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/114 "2004-02-23T04:20:39Z")
Under the general heading of “learning something new every day,” I am glad to see that winning a Pulitzer requires no appreciation of the meaningless of small samples. I question, however, whether this discovery is relevant. Because after all, the situation of the richest 400 people in America tells us a great deal about the situation of the wealthy as a whole. If we are to use these 400 to draw conclusions about the wealthy as a whole, I do hope you’ll allow us to use the poorest 400 people in America to draw conclusions about the poor as a whole. Isn’t playing with meaningless data fun? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/115 "2004-02-23T06:50:10Z")
> [@g8rguy](#): > > Under the general heading of “learning something new every day,” I am glad to see that winning a Pulitzer requires no appreciation of the meaningless of small samples. I question, however, whether this discovery is relevant. > > Because after all, the situation of the richest 400 people in America tells us a great deal about the situation of the wealthy as a whole. If we are to use these 400 to draw conclusions about the wealthy as a whole, I do hope you’ll allow us to use the poorest 400 people in America to draw conclusions about the poor as a whole. Isn’t playing with meaningless data fun? But it’s not a _sample_ at all, is it. It’s not a sample of 400 high income earners drawn from the top x% of all income earners. It’s the _entire_ top 400. It’s the extreme end of the scale, in its entirety. To dismiss it would be utterly absurd. Like saying that the DJIA is of absolutely no relevance, because it only covers the top 30 out of millions of incorparated and unincorporated businesses. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/116 "2004-02-23T07:36:20Z")
Of **course** it’s a sample, **Desmo**! It’s a sample of 400. Did you really think otherwise, or were you just trying to be funny? It’s a sample of 400, and it means _jack_, since the tax status of the richest 400 people doesn’t tell you much about the tax status of the very wealthy as a whole, which is properly the thing of interest. It does, of course, tell you all about the tax status of the 400 richest, but if you’re using this information to decide how to vote, you’re beyond help anyway. So since I was, apparently, insufficiently clear, let me try again: What in the name of God does the tax status of the richest 400 Americans have to do with anything? Why not the richest 10, or 1000, or those whose net worth exceeds $1bn? Why not just pick Bill Gates? If he pays an effective rate of 100%, or 0%, or anything in between, can I conclude _anything_ remotely useful? Or might we, just possibly, be better off looking at a sufficiently large section of the ends of the scale as to get an idea of the ends of the scale as a whole? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/117 "2004-02-23T08:17:41Z")
> [@g8rguy](#): > > Of **course** it’s a sample, **Desmo**! It’s a sample of 400. Did you really think otherwise, or were you just trying to be funny? > > It’s a sample of 400, and it means _jack_, since the tax status of the richest 400 people doesn’t tell you much about the tax status of the very wealthy as a whole, which is properly the thing of interest. It does, of course, tell you all about the tax status of the 400 richest, but if you’re using this information to decide how to vote, you’re beyond help anyway. It isn’t, and clearly isn’t supposed to be, and was never claimed to be a _representative_ sample of whatever it is that you happen to think are “the very wealthy”. > [@g8rguy](#): > > So since I was, apparently, insufficiently clear, let me try again: What in the name of God does the tax status of the richest 400 Americans have to do with anything? Why not the richest 10, or 1000, or those whose net worth exceeds $1bn? Why not just pick Bill Gates? If he pays an effective rate of 100%, or 0%, or anything in between, can I conclude _anything_ remotely useful? Or might we, just possibly, be better off looking at a sufficiently large section of the ends of the scale as to get an idea of the ends of the scale as a whole? The thing that **jshore** is talking about is the progressivity of the tax scales. It can be represented as a graph showing average tax rate vs income, from the lowest income to the highest. **jshore** ’s cite doesn’t give us the entire graph, only a few points on it. That’s much more useful than nebulous babble. If you want to argue that the way the data for the last point on the graph have been binned, e.g. that the bin size shouldn’t be 400, it should rather be 1, or 10, or 1000, then go ahead. Present the data and argue your case. If, alternatively, you want to argue that you should collect data on tax vs income based on net worth, or hair color, or anything else other than income for that matter, feel free to do that too. Just don’t expect to be taken terribly seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/118 "2004-02-23T08:39:32Z")
Okay: how about corporations who pay 0 in taxes then? Frontline did a report on this. You know that bank with the dumb new name: Wachovia? Pays nothing in taxes? Some even get tax credits. Why? Because it found a tax loophole wherin it gets a town in Germany to lease it the sewer pipe and cable cars, then it leases them right back to the town. The leases, in which nothing changes hands and the net cash in everyone’s pockets stay the same, for some reason allow them to entirely dodge tax payments. That’s our system. And it makes a big difference when it comes to which statistics you use. Most of the tax statistics I’ve seen don’t take into account dodges like this. They just use the general tax rate, estimate the tax bases of various tax levels, and estimate what everyone is paying. Not what they actually pay, which in some cases, is 0. Just something to be on the lookout for. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/119 "2004-02-23T08:55:18Z")
**Apos** : Is that post directed to anyone in particular? If you’re just trying to point out to _me_ that taxable income can differ from reported income or GAAP income or cash income or whatever, you won’t find any arguments here. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490/120 "2004-02-23T14:23:32Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > It isn’t, and clearly isn’t supposed to be, and was never claimed to be a _representative_ sample of whatever it is that you happen to think are “the very wealthy”. The thing that **jshore** is talking about is the progressivity of the tax scales. It can be represented as a graph showing average tax rate vs income, from the lowest income to the highest. Yes, thank you, **Desmo**. Any time you wish to try saying something _useful_, you may begin. Even you apparently understand that the data is not representative. Frankly, I’m stunned that anyone is defending using unrepresentative data as a gauge of anything, and that pointing out that the data isn’t a usefully representative sample is somehow controversial. If you are willing to use unrepresentative data to make some sort of case, you are being intellectually dishonest. I’d hope for better. If I hope in vain, that’s not _my_ problem, but yours. I am not trying to claim that the rich don’t pay an insufficient amount of taxes. I am not trying to say that any conclusions one draws from **jshore** ’s cite are clearly wrong. I _am_ claiming that knowing what 400 people are paying in taxes doesn’t tell me squat about what the rich in general are doing, which is what we should be worried about. You, apparently, think differently, and in your little world, it’s my job to prove you wrong. But then, since in your little world the DJIA is all I need to know to gauge the economy’s strength, I’m not surprised. In my world, you’re not worth wasting my time on: If you don’t understand that unrepresentative data allows one to draw no meaningful conclusions, you need more time than I am willing to devote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-i-vote-for-bush/224490.md?page=7)