user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
It's also stupid, but then what can you expect from Mr. Chimp.
Interestingly enough, I asked some Americans about this, I told them that Bush has cut your taxes, giving benefit to the rich, but this places a bigger burden on your children (obviously in the sense of a bigger tax deficit), the response from one American was: "You know we are in war time, don't you? You Canadians are so naive, you won't even let Fox News in." Seriously, that was the response
by aya on Wed Jan 26, 05 4:09pm
[+]
aya, now you're beginning to grasp what some of us have lived with for years, being confronted on a daily basis witht those who only think as far as the propaganda lets them.
We've borrowed way too much money for this war. Pretty soon the dollar won't be worth a cent. The chimp just doesn't get it.
Yes, that is insane
by ABC on Wed Jan 26, 05 4:57pm
[+]
It is never immoral to cut taxes. We'd be better off cutting war.
Cath cath cath, you keep trotting out that 'tax cuts for the rich' line, we both know it is misleading. The bulk of the tax cuts went to the middle class, the rich got back more, but only because they were paying more in.
We should go to a flat tax system, with some exemption for people at the very bottom of the ladder. This has been tried in russia and they found that it acutally raised more revenue, despite lower taxes. It benefits the economy (so there's more money to take) and there are fewer loopholes for the rich to sneak through.
The war and the deficit can be paid down by slashes in social expenses.
Exactly why do liberals complain so much about not having enough revenue, when they are so eager to pay for such things as sex changes for prisioners, welfare, and gay education programs?
I keep trotting out the tax cut situation because it is still a major problem.
have you read the tax changes, herzog? Or are you just parroting the Bill O'Reilly talking points?
Let me give you some details ...
* Over the coming ten-year period, the richest Americans -- the best-off one percent -- are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars.
* The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade.
* By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent -- whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each.
Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.
Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts -- averaging just under $12,000 each this year -- —80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005.
In contrast, the vast majority of middle- and lower-class taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation.
For the four out of five families and individuals making less than $73,000 this year, three-quarters of the tax cuts (averaging about $350 this year) are already in place.
Tax cuts for the 19 percent of taxpayers making between $73,000 and $356,000 this year will grow a little over the next four years as the cuts in the upper tax rates continue to kick in, but then will dwindle thereafter. By 2010, the tax cuts for this group will be no bigger as a share of income than they are now.
As a result, freezing the Bush tax cuts at their 2002 levels would have little or no effect on 99 percent of the taxpayers, whose tax cuts are already mostly or completely "frozen."
Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.
Again, the lie is in the statistics since the gross numbers of non-wealthy are much, much larger.
If you compare % population with % benefit, you get a notably disparate figure.
Cath: you don't really expect people to get more back then they put in do you? That wouldn't be a tax cut, it'd be another free handout from the government.
Do the rich pay in more money, proportionally, than the poor in taxes? Of course, so is it logical that in a tax cut they'll recieve more money back? This isn't about punishing the wealthy or rewarding them, it's about reducing the tax burden over all americans. If the poor were the most heavily taxed they'd recieve the largest cuts, but as is they don't pay any federal income taxes.
herzog, if you hit social expences too hard the US will resemble the Former Soviet Union at best, a war torn Iraq at worst.
herz, why are you arguing a strawman? Point out to me where I said people should get back more than they pay in. I did not.
Re: Do the rich pay in more money, proportionally, than the poor in taxes? Of course, so is it logical that in a tax cut they'll recieve more money back?
Uh ... only if the tax cut is a regressive, across-the-board tax cut. It doesn't have to be that way.
Re: This isn't about punishing the wealthy or rewarding them, it's about reducing the tax burden over all americans.
That sound sgood, but isn't good policy. A dollar to the middle class is worth more to them than teh same dollar to the wealthy. It is called discretionary income ... and that is way different as a percentage of income.
Note also that the tax cuts, as implemented, were incredibly poor fiscal policy, because they were a narrow-niche stimulus (primarily benefitting the wealthy). If they had been targeted to teh middle-class (yes, even excluding the wealthy, who were not hurting under the previous system) we'd have had a more borad-based and sustainable recovery.
But ... it fits the current GOP agenda to try and depict all dollars as of equal value, despite income.
$100 to a lower-middle class family can be the difference between whether they eat or pay bills.
$10,000 to a wealthy family is the difference between whether they buy a buy Lexus or just get an SUV.
There is an equity issue at play. But it isn't against the poor wealthy people.
We should just cut the budget.
Lower income families recieved tax cuts in proportion to what they paid.
Cath: it shouldn't be about punishing the wealthy for their success, or rewarding the poor for their failures. The government should make every effort to make taxes as low as possible, and spend the least amount of public money as they can get away with.
That being said everyone should be required to pay something in, it's not fair to contribute nothing and get everything back. It's also not fair to disproportionately attack those who manage to support themselves. Everyone should be taxed at the same rate. That's the only fair way to do it.
And if it were required that everyone in the US have the same tax rate that would elimate the ability of politicians to screw around with the tax code to gain votes.
|
|
