Bush Defends Rich Tax Cheaters?

LOL!

That has never made sense to me as an argument for reducing taxes on the wealthy.

Person # 1 and 19 of his buddies make $1,000,000 each. That's $20,000,000 at say a 30% tax rate = $6,000,000 paid in taxes. ($300,000 each)

Person # 2 and 59 of his buddies make 100,000 each. That's $6,000,000 between them at say a tax rate of 20% = $1,200,000 in taxes. ($20,000 each)

Person # 3 and 19 of his buddies make $20,000 each for a total of $400,000. At an approximate tax rate of 10% they would pay in $40,000, or $2000 each.

Now we have 100 people total. The total tax revenue is $7,600,000. If that were divided equally, each of the 100 people would have to pay $76,000. Is that fair? Everyone is paying the same amount, is that what you want?


Now, maybe what you want is for all to have the same tax rate. Take the same income and group numbers above and apply a 15% tax rate.

Group #1 pays $150,000 each ($3,000,000 Total for group)

Group #2 pays $15,000 each ($900,000 Total for group)

Group #3 pays $3000 each ($60,000 Total for group)

Who's taxes went down? Who's taxes went up?

Okay, here's the stumper... Ready?

Which group or groups are STILL paying the majority of taxes / the highest percentage of the tax revenue?

This message brought to you by the Eighteenth Century.

LOL, when you have a possibly fatal infection, make sure you let the germs vote on you taking antibiotics!

What? No answer for me karzak? Which groups are still paying the highest percentage of the tax revenue?


Oh, Wait, wait, wait.

I just thought of another way to do it to make it fair for Karzak and company.

What if when Congress decides the 2005/2006 budget they work really hard to cut out all of the pork and junk and decide the federal government can run on $3 trillion for the year including the war. We could take that figure and divide by the number of people ages 22 - 65 (working age) ... Everyone pays that amount on April 15th of 2005.

If currently not employed (6.5% ??? of the work population number or whatever it ends up being) the amount you should have paid on April 15th goes into a debt record and when you do start working, this gets paid first.

Now, hows that for fair? Everyone could keep their voting rights, too, this way.

Answer to what? A flat tax is fair, everyone pays their equal share. The current graduated tax increases the burden of success and alliviates the burden of mediocracy.

I really saw nothing in your post worth responding to.

No, Duh! I figured you would miss the point.

There is no point to miss, a flat tax puts an even burden on society, the current graduated one puts the burden on success.

Still missing it...

You seem confused...

No, I don't think I am the one confused.


Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, CBO Says -Reports

Fri Aug 13, 3:02 AM ET


NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.



The Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry (news - web sites).


The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.


In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.


Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

Rest of the story... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=5&u=/nm/20040813/pl_nm/campaign_taxes_cbo_dc

When talking about the amount of foriegn aid the US gives the world, I pointed out the sum was much higher than many countries, but was told that it's the percentage that's important, not the sum. When looking at tax cuts, I see that sums are discussed instead of percentages to demonstrate how the rich have benefitted from the tax cuts.

Which is it, the total or the percentage that's important?

McG - As I tried to point out on the previous page, no matter what the rich are always going to pay more taxes unless their tax rate is reduced to 0. Even 1% of a millionaires income is more than most people pay in taxes.

As I tried to point out, the only way to make it "fair" is to charge everyone the same amount, and as one can easily see, that isn't very fair.

Taking money out of the hands of the middle class, the ones that actually spend money by necessity, obviously is NOT helping the economy. The wealthy, whom I do not begrudge in any way, have not boosted the economy as claimed.

I think the factor at work here is that the tax cuts were in favor of the wealthy INDIVIDUALS in hopes of creating jobs. It's the CORPORATIONS that hire. A person (small business) earning over $200,000 would be a fool to not be INCORPORATED, which means the tax implications are completely different. The tax cuts were for the wealthy INDIVIDUALS, not CORPORATIONS. I have never heard this distinction be made when Bush has talked about small business owners, jobs, tax cuts and the economy.

Technically, because of a clerical snafu years ago, corporations are considered individuals.

And they have caused holy hell with that undeserved privilege.

In general, it is the rich people that keep those corporations solvent and hiring people. If taxes are too high, they move their businesses off shore and completely eliminate the US tax burden.

And might I add, squinney, you are looking mighty fine this morning.

< don't let Bear know I complimented you -- he's a jealous bastard >

(Sorry, I blush easily.)

Thanks, Gus. So, you must have noticed I brushed my chest hair and fluffed it up a bit. Thought you might like that!