$$$ Don't Forget to Pay Kerry Today $$$$$$$

[GWB]

http://images.freeadvice.com/images/law/images/at/taxes.gif
John Kerry and his tax and spend Democrats are anxiously awaiting your tax payments today. They hope to spend it all, and then a lot more still (and not on important things like national security).

Go ahead, make an extra monetary donation to the US government, I am sure Kerry will appreciate it.

W
(your tax cutting friend)

[Nepa]

Read my Lips "NO NEW TAXES"

[whiskeytown]

I'd rather have a tax and spend liberal then a dumbass who wipes out our surplus while giving massive tax breaks to his corporate buddies -

that nice tax cut you put thru last time - the one for the middle class? - the bottom 60 percent only got 14 percent of that tax cut - most went back to the top.

nice move dickwad.

RB

[andyfox]

Please tell us why you've expanded the alternative minimum tax, which in coming years, will penalize middle- and upper-middle-class taxpayers.

Please tell us why the social security system has taken in $1,700,000,000,000 more than it has paid out in the last twenty years.

Please tell us why the least well-off 20% of American taxpayers pay 18% of their income in total taxes and the most well-off pay 19% in a supposedly progressive tax system.

Please tell us why Afghanistan is a mess now and we here nothing about it from you ever.

Please tell us why you are unconcerned that the working poor must pay social security and medicaire taxes on the first dollar of their income, thus assuring that they never have enough money to save and/or invest.


Please tell us why all of the commercials I see on TV that you say you have approved say absolutely nothing about your policies, but are simply attack ads aimed at your opponent.

And please tell us if you still feel that the mission has indeed been accomplished in Iraq, as you told us it was so many months ago.

Or don't bother. There's a good chance we'll get to read your book pretty soon.

[Clarkmeister]

I like the ad that talks about Kerry wanting a $.50/gal tax on gasoline. If true, it's a good reason to vote for Kerry.

[jdl22]

Again, explain why Bush's plan which involves "don't tax and spend" policies is better than "tax and spend."

The idiot this idiot is impersonating poorly (come on initially you weren't bad mispelling words to satirize his mispronunciations and such, but now it's just lame) is like a college student that can't handle spending and maxes out several credit cards because he is spending money he doesn't have. What Bush and the college student don't realise is that down the road there will be a heavy price paid.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, explain why Bush's plan which involves "don't tax and spend" policies is better than "tax and spend."



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why it is hard to understand that some increased spending is going to happen whichever party is in office (especially when faced with a national security threat). But can you seriously expect the Democrats to spend less on social programs?

Not a Chance!

And when the Democrats get back in, they will raise taxes and spend ever extra cent.

If the GOP hadn't taken control of Congress in 1995, we would never have had a balanced budget - Clinton and the Democratic Congress was spending like crazy in 1993-1994.

W

[Zeno]

Is this a 50 cent increase of the Fed gas tax paid at the pump, or just an increase to a total of 50 cents (per gallon)?

I agree, the Fed gas tax is too low in this country and needs to be increased. The last increase was under Reagan, I think.

-Zeno

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this a 50 cent increase of the Fed gas tax paid at the pump, or just an increase to a total of 50 cents (per gallon)?

I agree, the Fed gas tax is too low in this country and needs to be increased. The last increase was under Reagan, I think.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bush ad would have us believe that Kerry supports an additional $.50/gal tax at the pump. I certainly hope so, its a great idea.


Edit: here is a link to the Bush site which talks about the tax in a humorous way.

http://www.georgewbush.com/calculator/

[whiskeytown]

they took the fact that Kerry didn't vote on a 50 cent proposal (he neither co-sponsored or voted on the bill for or against) and made that the focus of the ad

another BS lie from the guys that brought you mass weapons of destruction in Iraq

an interesting point...Cheney and his buddies have been campaigning for higher fuel prices anyways...this helps out George W's oil buddies rake in more money -

http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/archives/001502.html

RB

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell us why you are unconcerned that the working poor must pay social security and medicaire taxes on the first dollar of their income, thus assuring that they never have enough money to save and/or invest.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. I think something should be done about this. But it should be coupled with a tax package that would help and encourage Americans to invest and save. For example, I have always detested the tax on the interest (for every dollar saved) you earn from personal checking and savings accounts. This is downright asinine. Everyone should be encouraged to save money for investing, for purchings large items, and as an overall sound financial thing to do etc and having this penalty tax for doing so is ridiculous and counter productive in the long run.

-Zeno

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell us why you've expanded the alternative minimum tax, which in coming years, will penalize middle- and upper-middle-class taxpayers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically this group didn't get that much of a tax break especially those that thought they were getting a deal with new capital gains rates and dividend rates. Although Kerry defines rich as being families that make $200,000+ so apparently he wants to sock it to the group you mention even harder.

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell us why the social security system has taken in $1,700,000,000,000 more than it has paid out in the last twenty years.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an easy one. The number of people paying in vs. the number of people collecting accounts for this. In a word demographics.

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell us why the least well-off 20% of American taxpayers pay 18% of their income in total taxes and the most well-off pay 19% in a supposedly progressive tax system.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you come up with this one? I know the poorest families pay little if nothing in Federal taxes unless they're completely oblivious to the tax code. Check out the Earned Income Credit. For many of the poorest earning families have their Social Security payments more than offset by the Earned Income Credit. Granted it's for poor families with children but they're in the bottom 20%. The other thing about Social Security is that very wealthy people will not need the Social Security benifits that middle class and poor people will need thus payments are capped at a certain income level. I realize that Social Security is screwed up but payments made by wealthy individuals are subsidizing the retirement of the less wealthy. I don't see any other way to look at it. How fair is that and where do you draw the line? It boils down to what income redistribution is fair in my mind. It's easy to carp at something but not offering a solution makes that carping kind of hollow methinks. Hell the whole income tax system is screwed up so far be it from me to defend it. Do I have a solution? I've stated many times before that defining income for all income earners in our society is a daunting and complex task which leads to a complex tax code which is the breeding ground for special interests and ultimately government corruption. So it appears to me that possibly a consumption tax might be appealing but again defining what consumption that is taxed and what isn't would probably lead to difficulties and complexities as well.



[b] <font color="red"> April 15 sucks </font>

[adios]

My understanding is that Kerry was given a "failing grade" by the Concord Coaltion in 1994 he complained in an interview that he supported a $0.50 a gallon gasoline tax trying to show that his "failing grade" was in error.

from the Concord Coalition site:

The Concord Coalition is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization advocating fiscal responsibility while ensuring Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are secure for all generations.

Concord Coalition Website (http://www.concordcoalition.org/)

Here's an article that mentions Kerry's "flip-flop" on this issue as it cites many other Kerry "flip-flops":

If You Don't Like The Democratic Nominee's Views, Just Wait A Week (http://www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=3968)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell us why Afghanistan is a mess now and we here nothing about it from you ever.


[/ QUOTE ]

Being a mess is an improvement from the explosive diarrhistic disaster it used to be.

Stu

[andyfox]

Hardly anything could be worse than the Taliban, it's true. But the Taliban are still a force in many parts of Afghanistan and the country continues to provide safe haven for member of Al Qaeda.

[andyfox]

When the impact of all taxes is considered--federal income tax, Medicare tax, social security tax, state and local income taxes, sales, property and excise taxes--the numbers show that the top fifth of Americans pay 19% and the bottom fifth pay 18%.

Warren Buffet says that on his last dollar of income, he pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary. If, as is likely, that his last dollar of income is a divident or capital gain, he pay 15%. His secretary pays 15.3% in Soeical Security and Medicare taxes (when both the part deducted from her paycheck and the share paid by her employer are counted).

[andyfox]

When the government sets tax rates, they are deciding who will prosper, and by how much. A government that taxes the poor on their first dollar of wages, as the United States does with the Social Security and Medicare taxes, is deciding to limit or eliminate the ability of those at the bottom of the income ladder to save money.

Our tax policy is created for the well-off by the well-off.

[Ray Zee]

yea but doesnt everyone use about the same services from the govt. so shouldnt everyone pay something of a poll tax(head tax). we all use the roads, breath the free air, get the same fire and police protection, military protection, benefits from govt. reasearch. get the picture. why should you pay more into the pot because you choose to work harder.
should a rich person pay more for the same dinner out as a poor person.
if we believe that more should be paid if you have or earn more. than it would follow that the fair way would be a flat tax.

[andyfox]

Who says I work harder than someone with less money than I? Many people in the top fifth earn their money from dividends, investments, etc. All of the people in the bottom fifth earn their money working 9 to 5.

A rich person doesn't have to pay more for the same dinner as a poor person. He doesn't have to eat at McDonalds.

A rich person can afford to pay more of his income for taxes. The richest 1% of Americans own half of the financial assets in the country. The richest 15% control nearly all of the financial assets. The top 13,400 households earn more income than the 96,000,000 poorest Americans.

The poor get much less out of government than the rich. The poor don't have tax shelters; they can't defer their taxes; they can't under-report their income; they don't have capital gains, taxed at a lower rate; they don't have tax provisions written specially for them; they don't use the best accountants and tax lawyers to avoid taxes; and they get audited more than rich people.

[adios]

Andy all you have to do is look at the Earned Income Credit tables and you'll see that I'm right about the poorest families. Whatever they pay in Social Security and Medicare is more than offset by the EIC. I just don't know where you get your data when you make the statement about 20% of the poorest families.

[andyfox]

I'll get you the documentation. I'm not just talking about the tax credit countering the Medicare and Social Security taxes. I'm considering all taxes.

[adios]

Sales taxes and state income taxes probably get you there but I'm fairly certain that you can only lay this Feds partially. The standard deduction is a joke, it doesn't cover anything close to living expenses IMO and if you don't itemize I don't believe you can deduct state income tax paid.

The tax system sucks.

[andyfox]

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/01/20/business/21DOUBLE.chart.jpg

On another note, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1% of the population had an average after tax income gain of $414,000 from 1979 to 1997. The middle fifth quintile had an average gain of $3,400. The bottom fifth had a decrease of $100. [1997 dollars adjusted for inflation]

Effective Federal Tax Rates, 1979-1997, Congressional Budget Office, October 2001.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Sales taxes and state income taxes probably get you there but I'm fairly certain that you can only lay this Feds partially. The standard deduction is a joke, it doesn't cover anything close to living expenses IMO and if you don't itemize I don't believe you can deduct state income tax paid.

The tax system sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This made me laugh. Here you say the standard deduction is not enough, and in other threads people complain that they do not lose enough at poker to itemize.

W

[adios]

Government receipts include federal and state income taxes, Social Security contributions (employee's share), property taxes, utility taxes, federal and state tobacco taxes, federal and state gasoline taxes, and state sales taxes.

You're laying all this on Bush? Are you nuts?

For the bottom 20% they don't pay any federal taxes at the income level shown. For single tax payers the earned income credit defers some of their Social Security expenses and medicare expenses. For taxpayers with children at this level the EIC more than makes up for what they pay in SS and medicare.

Let's look this list further:

federal and state tobacco taxes

This makes this chart suspect if not outright bogus to me. Why don't they include all the sin taxes then it would look like they actually pay more /images/graemlins/smile.gif. How is it determined how much people at the lowest income level pay on tobacco? And please it's a choice people make.

state sales taxes.

I don't see how Bush has a thing to do with this.

state income taxes.

Ditto

utility taxes

Ditto

federal and state gasoline taxes

Given that some on this forum want to raise gasoline taxes substantially who apparently decry that the highest quintile isn't paying their fair share of taxes, apparently they believe that the rich people should subsidize gasoline usage of the poor.

I get back to the basic question how much should the wealthy be taxed to subsidize the poor in this country (a less polite way to say income redistribution)? If the poor aren't paying federal income taxes to begin with, then I guess what you're advocating is a negative income tax. I would guess you'd be in favor of the Federal government handing out lots of money to the bottom quintile since they pay 0 dollars in Federal income tax currently.


And as far as the bottom quintile making less money, so what?

[Ray Zee]

the bottom quintile makes less money as that is the definition of it. someone has to be the lowest earners. the fairest taxes are sin taxes, and taxes on things that hurt other people by you using them. such as plastic wrapers, gasoline, tobacco, booze, coal, wood buring, chemicals,scarce natural resources, polution things of any kind, you get my idea.
the rich pay most of the tax now. thats how it is. that isnt fair but we seem to be stuck with it. the people that get hit hardest is the upper middle class in the taxes. they pay the largest % of their income in taxes after taking out basic living expenses. but that doesnt make it unfair.

adios i put this post under yours but it doesnt disagree with you.

[andyfox]

No, I'm not laying it on Bush. He has, however, contributed to the problem with his tax policies.

The initial post was an anti-Kerry one. Certainly the Democrats are at least as much to blame for our current tax system as the Republicans.

There already is a negative income tax in the form of the credit, which you have pointed out.

The poor already subsidize the rich in this country through the tax code. I'll give some examples by tomorrow.

As far as the bottom quintile doing less well, it can't be good for the future of the country is the rich and super-rich keep getting richer and the less well off keep losing ground. Any tax policy is a redistribution.

[crockb00n]

dubya and kerry are morons

they arent addressing the real issue at hand

my man will lower the rake at party poker

crock : the wise mans vote

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]

The poor get much less out of government than the rich. The poor don't have tax shelters; they can't defer their taxes; they can't under-report their income; they don't have capital gains, taxed at a lower rate; they don't have tax provisions written specially for them; they don't use the best accountants and tax lawyers to avoid taxes; and they get audited more than rich people.


[/ QUOTE ]

The poor clearly get more out of the government than the rich. You talk about tax breaks and having capital gains taxed at a lower rate and all that, *but poor people don't pay anywhere near as much in taxes as rich people do*. Look up how much of the nation's taxes are paid by the top 1% of earners. Or by the top 10% of earners. And then tell me who's footing the bill for everyone who gets an Earned Income Tax Credit or other form of welfare often after *not paying any taxes at all for that year*. Poor people not only don't pay taxes, but they get money back!

Some people act like getting a tax break on investments is some terrible thing. Well, people need incentive to invest their money on risky adventures. When you need a job, do you go to the guy in the big house, or do you go to the bum on the street corner? You go to the guy in the big house because he is willing to risk his money and potentially lose it. A rich guy with a cut capital gains tax is still paying more on that tax than a poor person because poor people don't have any capital gains to pay taxes on.

You'll see democrats saying how corporate tax breaks are bad, but then you'll see them offering tax breaks for businesses to open up factories in their areas. Such hypocrites. Every time a plant or store closes, it's the people who have never invested/risked a dime in their lives crying about losing their jobs, as if the guy who risked his money opening the business owes them something. Guess what, people, big business is good for America. When a big factory closes, an entire town can close with it. To give incentive to people to invest in businesses, yeah, sometimes a tax break is in order, because otherwise no one, not even a good-willed poor person, is going to risk investing their money.

You mentioned that poor people pay 18% of their income in taxes while the rich pay 19%. Yeah, and? Even using your own numbers, looks like the rich not only pay a higher percentage in taxes, but of course 19% of a lot is way more than 18% of not much.

And to anyone complaining about Bush's tax cuts, when was the last time a democrat cut your taxes instead of raising them? People with more money got a bigger cut because they pay more. Middle-incomes still got a pretty nice cut compared to the cuts they've gotten in the past, which were pretty much none. Bill Clinton promised a middle-class tax cut. George Bush delivered. Bush would have had you keeping even more of your own money, but the cut you got already put the dems on tilt.

ANY tax cut is a good tax cut. A higher tax on gas? They'll just spend it on crap anyway. And then the leaders who are "for the little guy" often tend to be the ones who want to raise taxes on gas and things like that, but those taxes will hurt poor people far more than it hurts a rich guy.

Laying some huge tax on an evil, big business filters down to the everyday consumer. Put a tax on Walmart for being evil and big, and the person who will pay for that tax is joe-average after Walmart raises its prices enough to cover the tax. Put a big tax on gas, and now you can pay for that tax on everything you buy that was shipped by semi.

Remember what happened when the dems wanted to punish rich people by putting a big tax on boats? What happened? That's right, rich guys stopped buying boats and so tons of people who made boats for a living lost their jobs. Way to go.

Why is it a crime to be rich?

[andyfox]

"poor people don't pay anywhere near as much in taxes as rich people do*. Look up how much of the nation's taxes are paid by the top 1% of earners."

I have. If you consider income tax only, of course you're correct. But if you consider total taxes paid, the rich pay about the same as everybody else.

"A rich guy with a cut capital gains tax is still paying more on that tax than a poor person because poor people don't have any capital gains to pay taxes on."

This statement speaks for itself.

"19% of a lot is way more than 18% of not much."

And 81% of a lot is was more than 82% of not much.

"George Bush delivered."

I agree. More than half of the $1,300,000,000,000 in his tax cut will go to the rishest 1%.

In 2000, the top 400 taxpayers reported an average income of $174,000,000. They paid 22%. With the 2003 tax cuts, they would have paid jsut over 17%, close to the national average of 15.3%.

Hey, I'm one of the rich guys. I know firsthand how to take advantage of the system which is designed by and for people like me. I'm a business owner; the tax code lets me and invetors and landlords play by one set of rules, where we can hide income, fabricate deductions, defer compensation, use tax shelters and reduce our taxes. Wage earners have to work under a completely different set of rules whereby every dollar of income from a job or savings account is reported to the government and taxes withheld from each paycheck to make sure they pay in full. And for people making less than $25,000 a year, the IRS audited 1.36% of their tax returns; for people making over $100,000, they audited 1.15%.

I heartily recommend the bookPerfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston for your reading enjoyment.

"Why is it a crime to be rich?"

It's no crime to be rich. It's a crime to have a tax system like we have, where the rich are taxed less than the middle class.

[jokerswild]

Psycho, please take your anti-psychotic medication.

[Cyrus]

Fact : Republicans have been lying more consistently and more blatantly than Democrats about taxes, for the last two centuries.

Memory lane : Ronald Reagan, in his first year of office, instigated a huge tax cut. Bravo, Ronnie!

That tax cut is still eulogized to this day by Republicans and intelligent persons as the trigger of the Eighties' boom. Reagan's former Budget Director David Stockman, of course, later revealed that the tax cuts were "purely politically motivated", aiming to cut back various social programs on account of "the red ink". But, as Stockman charmingly put it, "things got out of hand"!

So what did they do to correct things before they got more out of hand?

Well, Ronald Reagan, in his next year in office, instigated the biggest ever tax increase in the history of the United States, a record that still holds to this day and is not expected to be surpassed any time soon.

So, Read My Lips : Ronald Reagan was actually a tax raiser.

Wait! I might have been too hasty. Reagan's record as tax raiser might be soon surpassed, by George W Bush, when he wises up to the snafu he has done. But, maybe, oh maybe Dubya can hold off a tax raise AND keep an 80 billion dollar war going? Maybe? Huh? Maybe? (pretty maybe?)

So, another Fact : There has never (read : NEVER!) been a tax cut in times of war in the history of the United States of America.

But George W Bush might make history yet. Bravo, Dubya!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
"poor people don't pay anywhere near as much in taxes as rich people do. Look up how much of the nation's taxes are paid by the top 1% of earners."

I have. If you consider income tax only, of course you're correct. But if you consider total taxes paid, the rich pay about the same as everybody else.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I paid as much taxes last year as Bill Gates and Donald Trump did? Interesting. Or perhaps you are talking percentage of income because otherwise it'd be hard for a middle-income person to pay 100k in total taxes like a richer person might pay.

[ QUOTE ]

"A rich guy with a cut capital gains tax is still paying more on that tax than a poor person because poor people don't have any capital gains to pay taxes on."

This statement speaks for itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly does. People who invest in the country and put their money at risk are paying taxes on that investment and risk while someone who hasn't invested or risked pays nothing. The guy who invests and risks his money is good for the country even if he didn't pay any taxes at all on that investment/risk.

[ QUOTE ]

I agree. More than half of the $1,300,000,000,000 in his tax cut will go to the rishest 1%.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rich pay more, so they get more back. But let's remember, middle incomes got about 2% and higher incomes got about 3%. Not exactly a huge difference there percentage-wise.

[ QUOTE ]

In 2000, the top 400 taxpayers reported an average income of $174,000,000. They paid 22%. With the 2003 tax cuts, they would have paid jsut over 17%, close to the national average of 15.3%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill Gates paying 15% is a whole lot more than a 25k-a-year guy paying 15%. And going by your statement, the rich STILL pay a higher percentage than poorer people anyway.

[ QUOTE ]

And for people making less than $25,000 a year, the IRS audited 1.36% of their tax returns; for people making over $100,000, they audited 1.15%.

[/ QUOTE ]

That percentage isn't a huge difference, but let's say there's something there that causes the difference. Many audits are random, so that could be a factor, as well as maybe poorer people do their taxes incorrectly or perhaps even cheat on their taxes more than a 100+k a year person does. I don't think that difference in percentage has much bearing either way due to so many potential variables.

[ QUOTE ]

It's no crime to be rich. It's a crime to have a tax system like we have, where the rich are taxed less than the middle class.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said under the new tax cuts a rich guy would pay 17% of his income in taxes while a poorer guy pays 15%. How is that less, whether percentage-wise or actual dollars?

I read the following elsewhere and thought it was amusing, so I'll include it here:

&gt; &gt; IF so, the higher income earners will still pay far more than their fair
&gt; &gt; share.

Yes they do. Let's make it more like REALITY: Imagine there are only two people in the country. One makes $2, the other makes $20. The one that makes $2 doesn't pay taxes, the one that makes $20 pays $8.00 in tax. The higher earner pays 100% of the tax. His taxes are cut so he only pays $6.50 and the lower income earner crys that the tax cut
didn't help him any and he demands that he be given a $2.00 check.

[Jim Kuhn]

I agree with many of the statements you make but not this one.

[ QUOTE ]
an interesting point...Cheney and his buddies have been campaigning for higher fuel prices anyways...this helps out George W's oil buddies rake in more money -



[/ QUOTE ]

If gas taxes are raised the demand would be reduced. People would carpool, refrain from driving, purchase smaller cars, take public transportation, etc. This should provide gas and oil companies less profit. Unless of course there was collusion by these corporations.

For better government please check out this link:

http://www.lp.org/issues/

Thanks for taking the time to read my opinions!

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Jim Kuhn]

I must be doing something wrong! I think I pay more than 40% of my gross salary in taxes. The following are my computations:

10% federal income tax
4% state income tax
7% ss/medicare tax
6% property tax
7% sales tax
6% misc taxes (hunting, fishing, deer/turkey permits, auto registration, peronal property tax, utilities/gas taxes, alcohol taxes, etc. This adds up to around 40%. How does this compare with other poster's figures?

For better government please check out this link:

http://www.lp.org/issues/

Thanks for taking the time to read my opinions!

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Jim Kuhn]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bush ad would have us believe that Kerry supports an additional $.50/gal tax at the pump. I certainly hope so, its a great idea.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would this highly regressive tax be a great idea? The only way I could see if public transportation was greatly enhanced and this money was somehow returned to the middle class.

For better government please check out this link:

http://www.lp.org/issues/

Thanks for taking the time to read my opinions!

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[andyfox]

"So I paid as much taxes last year as Bill Gates and Donald Trump did? Interesting. Or perhaps you are talking percentage of income because otherwise it'd be hard for a middle-income person to pay 100k in total taxes like a richer person might pay."

-Of course I'm talking %.

"People who invest in the country and put their money at risk are paying taxes on that investment and risk while someone who hasn't invested or risked pays nothing. The guy who invests and risks his money is good for the country even if he didn't pay any taxes at all on that investment/risk."

-The key question, for me, is whether the good that you perceive (and I agree with you) is counterbalanced by the harm that is done in terms of our tax system. Any decision to tax certain activities either at lower rates, or in different ways that reduce the effective tax, means that other activities are taxes at higher rate, or in different ways that raise the effective tax.

"The rich pay more, so they get more back. But let's remember, middle incomes got about 2% and higher incomes got about 3%. Not exactly a huge difference there percentage-wise."

-Well 3% is 50% more than 2%. That is a huge difference percentage-wise. President Bush said a woman making $200,000 deserves the same percentage tax cut as a woman making $20,000. So I suppose part of my disagreement is one of values, because I don't believe the woman making 10 times as much deserves or needs the same percentage tax cut because of the fact that she is already paying, in overall taxes, about the same percentage of her income, and can afford to pay a greater percentage of her income than the woman making one-tenth as much as she.

"Bill Gates paying 15% is a whole lot more than a 25k-a-year guy paying 15%. And going by your statement, the rich STILL pay a higher percentage than poorer people anyway."

-The 25K a year guy is struggling to make ends meet. Bill Gates is not.

"That percentage isn't a huge difference, but let's say there's something there that causes the difference. Many audits are random, so that could be a factor, as well as maybe poorer people do their taxes incorrectly or perhaps even cheat on their taxes more than a 100+k a year person does. I don't think that difference in percentage has much bearing either way due to so many potential variables."

-The point is that the IRS can collect a lot more money going after the big earners, rather than the small earners. It was mostly the earned income tax credit that caused the IRS to audit the less well-off more than the better-off.

"You said under the new tax cuts a rich guy would pay 17% of his income in taxes while a poorer guy pays 15%. How is that less, whether percentage-wise or actual dollars?"

-The 17% and 15% are federal income taxes. When the impact of all taxes and tax policies are included, the rich are taxed at lower rates than the middle class (and not much more than the poor).

"Imagine there are only two people in the country. One makes $2, the other makes $20. The one that makes $2 doesn't pay taxes, the one that makes $20 pays $8.00 in tax. The higher earner pays 100% of the tax. His taxes are cut so he only pays $6.50 and the lower income earner crys that the tax cut didn't help him any and he demands that he be given a $2.00 check."

-Any tax bite hurts those who struggle to make ends meet or to get ahead in life or to save a little or invest a little. The federal income tax is not a big deal for poor people. It's the other taxes that kill them. Bush's tax cut was on the income tax only. Three out of four households now pay more in Social Security taxes than in income taxes.

[andyfox]

Your problem may be that your income is "gross salary."

My best estimates as to what I paid in 2003 are:

Federal Income Tax: 19%
State Income Tax: 6%
SS/ Medicare: 3%
Property Tax: 4.5%
Sales Tax: 8.25%
Misc.: 5%


So I'm at about 45%.

Better to have most of one's income not in salary, and to live in a state with little or no state income tax, sales tax, or property tax.

[pretender2k]

can we elect to pay 80% of our income and miss the higher tax he wants us to pay?

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
"So I paid as much taxes last year as Bill Gates and Donald Trump did? Interesting. Or perhaps you are talking percentage of income because otherwise it'd be hard for a middle-income person to pay 100k in total taxes like a richer person might pay."

-Of course I'm talking %.


[/ QUOTE ]

So Bill Gates DID pay more in taxes than I did last year. Even with a flat tax he still pays FAR more in actual dollars than Joe Average. I don't see the problem. How much more should I expect someone to pay just because they make a dollar more than I do?

[ QUOTE ]

-The key question, for me, is whether the good that you perceive (and I agree with you) is counterbalanced by the harm that is done in terms of our tax system.


[/ QUOTE ]

When the government wants people to invest more, they lower taxes in investments. Investments are good for the country, and private investing generally beats the government investing in itself. And so I come back to my point that there is nothing wrong with cutting things like capital gains taxes because it's a tax on people who are willing to invest and risk their money in the country. What do poor people care about capital gains since they don't bother risking their money in investments anyway.

[ QUOTE ]

"The rich pay more, so they get more back. But let's remember, middle incomes got about 2% and higher incomes got about 3%. Not exactly a huge difference there percentage-wise."

-Well 3% is 50% more than 2%. That is a huge difference percentage-wise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, and going by your own statements, the "rich" STILL pay a higher tax rate than the commoners. I'd say that shows an interesting thing about past tax rates -- that even after a 50% extra cut (2% versus 3%) the rich guy STILL pays a higher percentage of his income in taxes. It's not a $200k a year person's fault that someone else only makes 20k a year.

[ QUOTE ]

-The 25K a year guy is struggling to make ends meet. Bill Gates is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's fault is that? You want to tax Bill Gates more because another guy didn't have the motivation to risk his money in a garage business? I say Bill Gates deserves every penny he's earned. And look at how many people he employs. Bill pays half the FICA of all his employees combined. That's a lot of tax. How much do you think Bill Gates should be paying a year in taxes?

[ QUOTE ]

-The point is that the IRS can collect a lot more money going after the big earners, rather than the small earners. It was mostly the earned income tax credit that caused the IRS to audit the less well-off more than the better-off.

[/ QUOTE ]

The IRS may be able to get more money that way, but is that way fair? If people are abusing the EIC, then they deserve to be audited. The EIC is even worse than a tax reduction or write-off because it's a tax rebate. People can pay ZERO in taxes yet still get $300+ back from the EIC. These are probably the same people who others think need a tax break even though you can't reduce an already zero tax payment.

[ QUOTE ]

"You said under the new tax cuts a rich guy would pay 17% of his income in taxes while a poorer guy pays 15%. How is that less, whether percentage-wise or actual dollars?"

-The 17% and 15% are federal income taxes. When the impact of all taxes and tax policies are included, the rich are taxed at lower rates than the middle class (and not much more than the poor).

[/ QUOTE ]

That includes invested income, right? And that would bring us back to the beginning. People who invest in the country are taking risks, so I can't begrudge them a tax break when they are risking their money to provide someone else a job. Many small businesses would never get off the ground if they couldn't take the breaks they can for the first years. If no one has incentive to invest, then people who don't invest won't have jobs.

[ QUOTE ]

-Any tax bite hurts those who struggle to make ends meet or to get ahead in life or to save a little or invest a little. The federal income tax is not a big deal for poor people. It's the other taxes that kill them. Bush's tax cut was on the income tax only. Three out of four households now pay more in Social Security taxes than in income taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we should cut taxes overall for everybody and curb spending. Sounds good to me. But when it comes down to it, Bush cut the taxes of all those lower and middle income people. Maybe the "rich" guys got 3% instead of 2%. So what? When was the last time anyone cut the lower incomes tax rate by even 2% instead of raising it? I don't understand how anyone can find fault in Bush's tax cuts. He cut the taxes of anyone who makes down to, what, 24k a year? How can someone who makes 30k a year complain about that? People will complain all day long when gas goes up 2 cents a gallon, but apparently they don't give a damn when their income tax gets raised twice in a two year period. Bush cut EVERYONE'S income tax. Give the guy some credit.











[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

"How much more should I expect someone to pay just because they make a dollar more than I do?"

Bill Gates pays the same percentage of his income in federal income taxes on the portion of his income that equals your total income. The higher tax brackets apply only to that portion of one's income that exceeds the percentage that is applied to the lower rate. That is, if one is in the 35% bracket, they don't pay 35% on all income, but rather only on that portion of one's income that exceed the point where the 35% rate begins.

"I come back to my point that there is nothing wrong with cutting things like capital gains taxes because it's a tax on people who are willing to invest and risk their money in the country. What do poor people care about capital gains since they don't bother risking their money in investments anyway."

I agree that there is a benefit to the country in encouraging investment. I disagree that there is "nothing" wrong with the lower rate on capital gains vs. "regular" income. Because since, as you correctly point out, poor people don't have an capital gains, this means they are being taxed at higher overall rates, since the rate on "regular" income is higher.

"It's not a $200k a year person's fault that someone else only makes 20k a year."

Who said it was?


"You want to tax Bill Gates more because another guy didn't have the motivation to risk his money in a garage business? I say Bill Gates deserves every penny he's earned. And look at how many people he employs. Bill pays half the FICA of all his employees combined. That's a lot of tax. How much do you think Bill Gates should be paying a year in taxes?"

I want Bill Gates to pay his fair share. His own father has written a book about how the elimination of the inheritance tax would be a travesty and a disaster for America. A system that encourages the ultra-rich to defer and hide income, and tax certain income at different rates than other income, to their benefit, is a system that cannot have the respect of its citizenry.

"we should cut taxes overall for everybody and curb spending."

-Sounds good to me too. Bush has cut income taxes, but not other taxes and has certainly not curbed spending.

"Bush cut EVERYONE'S income tax. Give the guy some credit."

-The original post blamed Kerry for high income taxes. This is ludicrous. Our tax system has evolved under both Democrat and Republican controlled congresses and Democrat and Republican controlled presidents. I do not blame Bush for our current tax system. I disagree with the amount of tax cuts given to the highest income earners.

[nicky g]

"Who's fault is that? You want to tax Bill Gates more because another guy didn't have the motivation to risk his money in a garage business? "

Lol. We could all become Bill Gates if we tried. The chances of even the top 1% of intelligent people managing anything like a Bill Gates's style success through an investment is considerably less than the chances of you flopping a royal over quads on the next hand you play. And BG didn't exactly come form the typical American background; he was very well-educated Harvard kid who had the back-up to drop out and focus on his innovations. Most people havehad to take a crappy job simply to survive a long time before they could get to that stage.

Also, don't you thiink there's more to positive contributions than investments? Bringing up children, working low paid tough jobs such as nursing, social work, teaching etc? Would everyone better off if those people focused on investing rather than their jobs? Should they have vastly more of their liveable income taken off them than a millionaire because they didn't invest or didn't get a break in life?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
he was very well-educated Harvard kid who had the back-up to drop out and focus on his innovations.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Bill Gates and Paul Allen started Microsoft in Albuquerque. Incredible as to what they started with (I know from personal experience btw) and what Microsoft became. Right vision, at the right place, at the right time.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, don't you thiink there's more to positive contributions than investments? Bringing up children, working low paid tough jobs such as nursing, social work, teaching etc? Would everyone better off if those people focused on investing rather than their jobs? Should they have vastly more of their liveable income taken off them than a millionaire because they didn't invest or didn't get a break in life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the fact the Gates has already donated $17 billion to charity and plans to leave his entire fortune to charity I think that his investing has paid off for mankind. Gates has stated that he won't leave his fortunes to his children and that they will have to make their own way in the world. Also Warren Buffet (2nd richest man in the world according to Forbes) has stated the same thing i.e. he won't leave his vast fortune to his children as it will go to charity and he's proven by his actions that his children will have to make their own way in the world.

[Jim Kuhn]

I am not sure but if a president cuts taxes by $10 and increases the deficit by $10 wouldn't that be a wash? The taxes are just being deferred to a later date. I am not sure of the figures but I think the deficit has far outpaced the cut in taxes. Andy - would these statements be correct?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the ad that talks about Kerry wanting a $.50/gal tax on gasoline. If true, it's a good reason to vote for Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all respect, Clarkmeister, it's a HORRIBLE idea.

Do you want personally want to pay an extra 50 cents per gallon for gas--all year long, year in and year out? Sure it may not seem like much now, when games are great, but it's like tipping--you have to keep it reasonable or it costs too much in the long term. And perhaps more importantly...

...a major gas tax hike could send growth, and the economy, into a tailspin or recession. And for anyone who doesn't realize it, the tighter money is in general, the tighter and sparser the poker games tend to be. Good economic times have historically corresponded with good poker games with lots of fish. Bad times have typically equaled less fish with less disposable income. So: consider the overall economic impact on poker. It may not seem like it would matter much now with the WPT boom going--but it would still matter. A bad economy is bad for poker players, period. And raising gas taxes that much will take considerable steam out of any economy.