Bush vs Kerry Economy
- Thread starter fluff
- Start date
Ahh, the good old "Tax the rich!" cry from Kerry.. great if you have $700M in the bank, bad if you happen to be just over that "rich" line and get taxed back to "middle class". it's kind of like training real hard for a race and then winning, only to be given third place instead because you ran too fast 
Except that it's not a race...BostonBullit said:Ahh, the good old "Tax the rich!" cry from Kerry.. great if you have $700M in the bank, bad if you happen to be just over that "rich" line and get taxed back to "middle class". it's kind of like training real hard for a race and then winning, only to be given third place instead because you ran too fast
I take it you prefer the cry of 'tax the poor'?
Better to barely be rich and get taxed back to middle class than to be barely middle class and get taxed back to the ghetto... ir to be in the ghetto and get taxed into a homeless shelterBostonBullit said:Ahh, the good old "Tax the rich!" cry from Kerry.. great if you have $700M in the bank, bad if you happen to be just over that "rich" line and get taxed back to "middle class". it's kind of like training real hard for a race and then winning, only to be given third place instead because you ran too fast
Kerry wants to increase the tax burden on the top 3%. Unless your definition of middle class is extremely broad I would say that it would be very hard to tax the top 3% back into the middle class.
What I am in favor of is an across the board equal percentage flat tax rate for all citizens no matter what their income. People that make more pay more, people that make less pay less; but we all pay the same %. No more loopholes, rebates, credits, deductions, or 12,000 pages of tax code. how much did you make last year, $25,000? that's nice, give me 25%. how much did you make last year, $500,000? that's nice, give me 25%.
how many people that worked 80hrs a week in the late 90s and early 00s to get those great stock options from their employers ended up oweing more than the stock was worth because of our facked up tax system designed to stick it to the rich? And who exactly is "rich" or "wealthy"? If I make $100k/yr in rural Kentucky am I rich? how about if I make $100k/yr in New York City?
The whole stick it to the man and down with whitey BS is a really great rally cry because the "middle class" always pictures the dude in a $5k suit and a BMW 7 series when you talk about it, but it's not all that black and white when you get right down to it
how many people that worked 80hrs a week in the late 90s and early 00s to get those great stock options from their employers ended up oweing more than the stock was worth because of our facked up tax system designed to stick it to the rich? And who exactly is "rich" or "wealthy"? If I make $100k/yr in rural Kentucky am I rich? how about if I make $100k/yr in New York City?
The whole stick it to the man and down with whitey BS is a really great rally cry because the "middle class" always pictures the dude in a $5k suit and a BMW 7 series when you talk about it, but it's not all that black and white when you get right down to it
The problem is that it is unfair on the poor. If person A makes $25,000 and pays 25% he is left with $18750. If person B makes $250,000 he pays 25% and is left with $187,500.BostonBullit said:
Both then need to live. Person A's relative cost of living is much higher than person B's and may leave him perilously close to disaster.
Of course you will no doubt think that person A should work harder. I will therefore ask you who works harder, a nurse at a central New York state hospital, or the son of a rich investment banker who earns his income from watching his inheritance grow via speculation in the stock market?
Never mind who is more useful to society.
and this is the exact situation that you are wanted to think of, not someone who has 3 kids, a stay at home wife, and works 65hrs weeks to make the $200k/yr; but the never worked a day in his life richy rich son of a richy rich fatcat that's just living the life off daddys money. in your zeal to go after the latter, you are penalizing the former for his hard work.fluff said:
And I don't think that person A should work harder because I know that doesn't gaurentee a higher income or a better life, but I also don't think that everyone is entitled to everything they want. is it fair to the guy who works hard at two jobs just to be able to keep up with the rent on his ****ty studio apartment? no. but is it fair to tell another guy that works just as hard to keep his family in a nice three bedroom home in the burbs that he should live in a 2 bedroom home so that the other guy can upgrade to a one bedroom? not really. better yet, lets take the guy in the studio apartment and tell him to work a third job so that a homeless guy can upgrade to a studio....
we can have a go at making everyone financially equal, but it hasn't worked for any country that has tried it so far and I don't think that the US will do any better at it.
the simply solution is a flat tax after the first $10-20k.
The only way for this to work is to phase it in over 30-40 yrs. It's not fair to the large number of people whose work is so heavily geared towards dealing with taxes. It wouldn't be fair to the people who spent years in college focused on this and to tell them to retrain into something else.
The only way for this to work is to phase it in over 30-40 yrs. It's not fair to the large number of people whose work is so heavily geared towards dealing with taxes. It wouldn't be fair to the people who spent years in college focused on this and to tell them to retrain into something else.
Trust me they would find their niche....as in tax planning...basically book keeping and what everyone swears the rich do in spades.LordOpie said:
a flat tax would still have a bajillion tax codes...they would just make many illrelavant and make many new ones. People would still want to track and plan for a lower tax bill no matter what rate they are required to pay.
Tax professionals job would change but it would not shrink or dissapear.
Just an opinion you understand. but even with a flat tax you would still have credits and all the rest of the crap. Government level wellfare is not going to go away.
Argghhh!LordOpie said:
Flat taxes are stupid and don't do anything useful. They are a solution looking for a problem...and you're still progressive if you're not taxing the first $10-20k, so you'll still get people who make more than that whining about getting screwed because the bag lady on the corner is getting a free ride.
Defining income is the hard part. Once you get that done, all a flat tax does is save you a couple of punches on the calculator's keypad.
Agreed.Silver said:Argghhh!
Flat taxes are stupid and don't do anything useful. They are a solution looking for a problem...and you're still progressive if you're not taxing the first $10-20k, so you'll still get people who make more than that whining about getting screwed because the bag lady on the corner is getting a free ride.
Defining income is the hard part. Once you get that done, all a flat tax does is save you a couple of punches on the calculator's keypad.
Nope, because that only works for W-2 employees.LordOpie said:
More people would just incoporate. Voila...deductions out the rear end. Companies allready would love to pay you 1099 if they could, so it wouldn't be a big step to restructure that way.
I think it would be a wash, it definitely wouldn't kill the industry. H&R Block might take a hit, but that's about it.LordOpie said:
All you do is change the beast. People will ALWAYS want to limit their taxes. No matter what structure you put in front of them.LordOpie said:
No deductions is a fairy tale....it would never pass. To many things going on for people to drop government welfare.
well, i'm sorry guys, I know I gave you something to discuss with the flat tax, but since that has to be the issue I care least about in the entire universe -- either way -- I'll try to keep the thread going by saying...
Bush is fiscally irresponsible and if Kerry raises taxes to fix Bush's problem, then good for Kerry.
Bush is fiscally irresponsible and if Kerry raises taxes to fix Bush's problem, then good for Kerry.
which is why I'll always be against paying taxes in general....GO LIBERTARIAN. you need to work for a government agency at least once to get a full understanding of how it works, it goes something like this: you get a budget for the year based on some arbitrary calculations. If you don't spend your entire budget then next year they cut your budget because you got more than you needed...worse yet you don't get an INCREASED budget, which is what everyone strives for whether they need it or not. So what happens? near the end of the fiscal year agencies race to spend every last penny they can whether they need the stuff they're buying or not. The next year their budget gets increased as a reward for cleaning their plate the previous year....RhinofromWA said:
Then when times aren't as good and there's not as much tax money to go around they ask for income tax increases to cover their budgets which have been increasing over blah years even if the increases weren't warrented. When someone questions them they immediatly move to cut any and all 'services' to the elderly, disabled, and children as a show of force. then all the mindless liberal lapdogs start to decry the errosion of society and heartlessness of anyone that questions the tax increases.
happens time and time again and no one ever catches on. amazing. Scrap the entire US personal tax code and institute a flat rate for anyone that earns over $blah grand a year. Put actual restrictions on who can incorporate and check them, and stop spending $.50 of every dollar collected by the IRS on collecting tax money. STOP FEEDING THE BEAST AND IT MIGHT LOOSE SOME WEIGHT....or die, whatever...
As much as I dislike Bush I'd put most of the blame on Congress. Bush pushed the tax breaks and a few large spending programs but congress passed them and did a lot of their own rediculous spending increases.LordOpie said:
Actually, that isn't true. Most of the mess is due to increases in discretionary spending and the tax cuts. The war costs money, but not as much as the GOP would like you to believe.LordOpie said:
BostonBullit said:
I prefer to think of it as penalizing those who neglect their families. :devil:
Looking at the tax brackets & how it is setup, I believe that we should implement an 'related tax' rate for all people in the US depending on the location where that person resides. What I mean by that is have lower taxes for the poor and higher taxes for the filthy rich (i.e., big shot actors, professional athletes, CEO's with big perks, etc). That way, I believe it is the fairest method, but as always, the politicians start running their mouths (b!tch, b!tch!ng, and more b!tch!ng) about the problems and no action happens as a result. The current tax method, IMO, is distributed in a way that it favors the rich. I believe that the rich could donate some more $ to the gov't because (1) they can afford those ferraris; (2) they can afford a $ 5M house; (3) they can afford the most expensive organic food grocery store in town; (4) they can afford to pay their MD when they get sick... and I could list more reasons... I think we all get the idea.
As for those who are poor, we gotta remember that we all have a certain minimium to live on, depending on the location. For instance, I live in OC, CA which is pretty expensive to live and with the apartment, food, and basics to keep me on my feet, I spend about 18k a year. On the other hand, we gotta remember those who are out in, say, Kansas and they could buy the exact same food, house, and basic stuff, and they could get by with 10k a year.
My thoughts...
-CAbiker
As for those who are poor, we gotta remember that we all have a certain minimium to live on, depending on the location. For instance, I live in OC, CA which is pretty expensive to live and with the apartment, food, and basics to keep me on my feet, I spend about 18k a year. On the other hand, we gotta remember those who are out in, say, Kansas and they could buy the exact same food, house, and basic stuff, and they could get by with 10k a year.
My thoughts...
-CAbiker
I'd like to see some justification for this please... The figures I've seen suggest the opposite.Silver said:
I think the recognised figure for the war in Iraq is actually $125 billion to date, plus $5 billion per month. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-07-cover-costs_x.htm)
And from CSMonitor.com, regarding US domestic spending:
As for Tax, it's a no-brainer.
Tax the poor a small amount, Tax the rich a lot. They CAN afford it. It's what every other country does. There should be more upper tax brackets and they should be more targetted at the ultra rich.
If you're earning over $100 Million a year (not many people for sure) you should have no problem paying at leat 80% tax. There does come an amount of money where it is simply ridiculous to make more. There's no way to spend it.
Cutting tax for the Rich is irresponsible and simply a tactic to get powerful people to get their minions to vote for you. It's practically campaign financing.
From my desk "US Master Tax Guide" Cliff notes for tax professionals....essentially.
Single Ind: Projected 2002 tax rates
0-6000 income Pay $0 + 10% over 6000
6001-27950 income pay 600 + 15% over 27950
27951-67700 income pay 3892.50 + 27% over 67700
67701-141250 income pay 14625 + 30% over 141250
141251-307050 income pay 36690 + 35% over 307050
307050-nolimit income Pay 94720 + 38.6% over 307050
The richest of the rich (taxable income wise) are taxed at a rate of 38.65 on anything over $307,050
It is a graduated tax bracket.
Poor people(and rich people alike) get the first 6000 non-taxed. Plus their personal exemption 3000 and std deduction 4700.
For a single filer that is 13700 of income not taxed at all. Then any over that starts at 10%, then 15%, and so on.
I effect taking from the rich and giving (by less taxes) to the poor. That is the idea behind a graduated tax bracket. If you only make XXX amount of dollars than you get taxed low. If you make XXXXXXXX amount of dollars than you get a much larger portion of that taxed.
Let take for example:
A: Flat (25% anything over 20,000) similiar to what LO suggested
Taxable income $20,000
Tax = 0
Taxable income $100,000
Tax = 20,000
Taxable income $1,000,000
Tax = 245,000
B: Graduated
Taxable income $20,000
Tax = 2700
Taxable income $100,000
Tax = 24,315
Taxable income $1,000,000
Tax = 362,199
We lose money with a flat tax...unless you want the flat tax to be much higher....35%? 40%? You willing to pay 35% or more on every dollar you earn over $20,000?
Is it fair? That is debatable. Is it fair to poor people? Some may say zero tax is unfair (though they do get the first $6000 free) Is the flat tax fair to rich people....well by the looks they wouldn't mind paying it.
Single Ind: Projected 2002 tax rates
0-6000 income Pay $0 + 10% over 6000
6001-27950 income pay 600 + 15% over 27950
27951-67700 income pay 3892.50 + 27% over 67700
67701-141250 income pay 14625 + 30% over 141250
141251-307050 income pay 36690 + 35% over 307050
307050-nolimit income Pay 94720 + 38.6% over 307050
The richest of the rich (taxable income wise) are taxed at a rate of 38.65 on anything over $307,050
It is a graduated tax bracket.
Poor people(and rich people alike) get the first 6000 non-taxed. Plus their personal exemption 3000 and std deduction 4700.
For a single filer that is 13700 of income not taxed at all. Then any over that starts at 10%, then 15%, and so on.
I effect taking from the rich and giving (by less taxes) to the poor. That is the idea behind a graduated tax bracket. If you only make XXX amount of dollars than you get taxed low. If you make XXXXXXXX amount of dollars than you get a much larger portion of that taxed.
Let take for example:
A: Flat (25% anything over 20,000) similiar to what LO suggested
Taxable income $20,000
Tax = 0
Taxable income $100,000
Tax = 20,000
Taxable income $1,000,000
Tax = 245,000
B: Graduated
Taxable income $20,000
Tax = 2700
Taxable income $100,000
Tax = 24,315
Taxable income $1,000,000
Tax = 362,199
We lose money with a flat tax...unless you want the flat tax to be much higher....35%? 40%? You willing to pay 35% or more on every dollar you earn over $20,000?
Is it fair? That is debatable. Is it fair to poor people? Some may say zero tax is unfair (though they do get the first $6000 free) Is the flat tax fair to rich people....well by the looks they wouldn't mind paying it.
2 words: Estate TaxChangleen said:
We do tax the poor little and the rich much more. That is the idea behind the graduated tax brackets....I guess they could up the high level back up to like 40% or more like in the past......
Here's a link from the Cato institue (not exactly a left wing think tank...If I have some time later I'll look for some stuff I read in the Economist.Changleen said:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html
As far as the tax stuff goes, do you know why Americans keep voting for tax cuts?
http://www.vault.com/nr/newsmain.jsp?nr_page=3&ch_id=400&article_id=52984&cat_id=1261
The delusion is amazing. Everyone thinks they are going to become rich.
No, I did.LordOpie said:
These are accounting students and they are delusional as hell about money. These are the people that should know better.
I'm still looking for the other survey I've seen before, I don't want to paraphrase it until I'm sure what it says...
Yeah yeah yeah... :mumble:LordOpie said:I think that's a first for this forum!
Anyways here is a reference to the study I was talking about:
http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1999/09/15/news/bites/
I'll try to track down the study later, I'm heading out for a ride.
Cool - Just found a short history of US tax:
In the UK, there are 2 tax brackets, but a crazy complicated way of allocating what percentage of your income is taxed. The base rate is 22% and it goes up to 40% when you earn over roughly US$60,000. In reality though 22 becomes 25 once you add national insurance and 40 becomes 43. On top of that there is a 17.5% sales tax on basically everything except childrens shoes and books.
Changleen said:
hmm, i dunno, one of the countries with the highest per capita in the universe, with the biggest fiscal defficit in the world, and with the lowest taxes on the upper brackets???
what buttons should you push???
the answer seems too obvious.
Good links Silver - I think we are actually arguing the same point using different names for types of spending... In both analysis Bush is spending **** loads on Medicare and No child left behind, but....
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm
Check out this link - It's a slightly N8 style OTT site, but you can check the facts. So what's going on? Huge budget plus cuts? Where's all the money going? WTF is going on?
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm
Check out this link - It's a slightly N8 style OTT site, but you can check the facts. So what's going on? Huge budget plus cuts? Where's all the money going? WTF is going on?
A little snippet from an Economist article in April 2004:
Whatever the Democrats say, there is nothing wrong with running a deficit during a downturn.
Yet Mr Bush has done more than just that. His budgeting arithmetic has often been haywire: his most recent effort includes no provision for keeping troops in Afghanistan and Iraq beyond this year. His desperation to provide cuts in tax rates has often blinded him to more effective ways to stimulate the economy. As for government spending, he has scattered that around like a drunken sailor, as Mr McCain has put it, with far too much being doled out in pork for friendly industries.
The farm bill alone, another disgraceful piece of protectionism, cost $180 billion over ten years, and billions more have been given to drug and energy firms. Mr Bush's words may favour free markets but his actions have too often favoured big lobbyists.
Whatever the Democrats say, there is nothing wrong with running a deficit during a downturn.
Yet Mr Bush has done more than just that. His budgeting arithmetic has often been haywire: his most recent effort includes no provision for keeping troops in Afghanistan and Iraq beyond this year. His desperation to provide cuts in tax rates has often blinded him to more effective ways to stimulate the economy. As for government spending, he has scattered that around like a drunken sailor, as Mr McCain has put it, with far too much being doled out in pork for friendly industries.
The farm bill alone, another disgraceful piece of protectionism, cost $180 billion over ten years, and billions more have been given to drug and energy firms. Mr Bush's words may favour free markets but his actions have too often favoured big lobbyists.