I'm aware that revenge is a dish best served cold--and that "politeness" can mask more cool hatred than a hot-blooded outburst.
I don't think that applies to Momma. No more than it does nimh. Don't you have to have something o go on before making such an accusation?
And, if you aren't making that accusation--why the feck did we broach it?
mesquite-- Take the tax cuts. Some people do not characterize them the way you do. Some people say they stimulated the economy and a job boom.
Even though you may have the highest intentions, and I don't mind giving you the benefit of the doubt on that; your view may not always be correct.
Could you concede that possibility?
I would not assume that tax cuts to the wealthy necessarily result in money spent in our economy or for the creation of jobs. If you ask me, tax cuts over a certain amount should be applied for as grants. In such grants the applicant should specify just how he will use this money to create jobs or otherwise stimulate the economy. If it's good enough for universities, why not for the rich?
I heard you, and the face of your comment sounds like an interesting idea.
However, your comment made it sound as if only the wealthy got a tax cut. I think there's an important error in that focus.
They get a disporportion amount of it. And many of them managed not to pay the taxes owed. I hope they do not get a refund on the money they did not pay.
Many economists argue that we would benefit more by giving more to those who need it most, i.e., the shrinking middle class. They are virtually certain to spend it.
I don't know if we ever found a "last word" on the tax cut issue.
I got this from FactCheck.org
Kerry's Tax Ad: Literally Accurate, But Misleading
His ad says "the middle class is paying a bigger share of America's tax burden." True. But it's a smaller burden all around. And the richest still pay the most.
October 13, 2004
Modified: November 8, 2004
A Kerry ad that claims to tell "the truth on taxes" falls short of doing so. It says that "after nearly four years under George Bush, the middle class is paying a bigger share of American's tax burden and the wealthiest are paying less."
That's true as far as it goes. However, the total federal tax burden on all income groups has been reduced, just more for some than for others. It's true that the top 20% of income earners now pay a smaller share of the reduced tax burden, but so do the bottom 40% of earners.
Those in the middle 20% now pay an average of 14.5% of their income for all federal taxes, a reduction 1.9 percentage points as a result of the Bush cuts. That middle group pays 10.5% of the reduced overall federal tax burden. That share has gone up as the Kerry ad says -- by 2/10ths of one percentage point.
This ad is a good example of how facts that are literally true can be used selectively to create a misleading picture.
Kerry Ad
"The Truth on Taxes"
John Kerry : Here's the truth on taxes. After nearly four years under George Bush, the middle class is paying the bigger share of America's tax burden and the wealthiest are paying less. It's wrong, we need to cut taxes on the middle class, not raise them. We also need to get heathcare costs under control and lower the nation's deficit. I don't believe the wealthy need another tax cut. I believe ordinary Americans need someone who will fight for them.
The ad says the "middle class" (which isn't defined) is paying "a bigger share of America's tax burden." Since nearly all Americans think of themselves as "middle class," that could easily be translated by most viewers as a statement that their tax burden has increased, when in fact it has decreased for all income groups.
The ad is careful to say the share of the burden has increased, and not the burden itself. But those who don't listen carefully could easily miss that.
The Burden:
Decreased for All Groups
Kerry's ad relies on figures released by the Congressional Budget Office in August. The CBO calculated the effect of all federal taxes, including the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes as well as such things as federal gasoline and tobacco taxes. Even so, the CBO figures show the tax burden has decreased -- on average -- at all income levels from the lowest to the highest.
[...]
It is also true, however, that the share of total federal taxes paid by the least affluent Americans -- those in the bottom 40% of earners -- has also decreased a bit. Kerry doesn't mention that, even though many of those persons also consider themselves "middle class."
And the overall system remains progressive, with upper-income groups paying significantly both higher rates and a higher share of the overall burden than lower-income groups.
For example:
The middle 20% of the population now pays 14.6% of their income for all federal taxes. That's a reduction of 1.9 percentage points as a result of the Bush cuts. And that group now pays 10.5% of all federal taxes, an increase of 0.2 percentage points.
The top 1% of the population pays a much higher rate -- 26.7% of their income goes to pay federal taxes, on average. That's 6.8 percentage points less than they would have paid under the tax rules in effect when Bush took office, so Kerry's ad is quite right to say "the wealthiest are paying less." And their share of the total tax burden did also drop by 1.8 percentage points. But this most affluent one percent still pays more than 20% of all federal taxes.The lowest-earning 20% of the population now pays only 5.2% of their average incomes in federal taxes, down 1.5 percentage points due to the Bush cuts. This bottom group pays only 1.1% of all federal taxes, and their share of the burden dropped by 0.1 percentage point.Whether the rich should pay higher rates or a bigger share than they do now is, of course, a matter of opinion. And the choice between the candidates is clear on that point: Kerry states he would reverse Bush's tax cuts for those making over $200,000 per year and grant some additional, targeted cuts to those in middle-income groups, while Bush would make his cuts permanent rather than allow many of them to expire as scheduled under current law.
But the fact is, all income groups are paying a lowered tax burden this year under the Bush cuts, the "middle class" included.
Sources
Ed Harris, David Weiner, and Roberton Williams, "Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014," Tables 2 & 4, Congressional Budget Office, Aug 2004.
___________________________
All this to say--there is a truth for everybody, depending on what they want it to be.
I believe factcheck--but you can see Kerry-ites fashioned a "competing truth" and sold it to whoever wanted to buy.
Mesquite-- What you believe to be a cut and dried Good Guy/White Hat issue is just not that easy to call.
I don't think you get to decide which votes are infringing on people and which aren't.
JLN--I don't think rich can get rebates on money they didn't pay, but the poor can in some cases, if I'm not mistaken. The child credit tax.
As I see it the size of one's burden is not its absolute size; it is its percentage of an individual's income or "total worth".
If a billionaire pays 10,000 in taxes and an individual with a "total worth" of 100,000 pays 5,000 in taxes. The latter individual is carrying a much larger burden. That should be obvious.
The flip side of that, though, is that a billionaire shouldn't have to fork over millions, to match Joe Average's share.
There's a basement--and there should be a ceiling.
The problem is the write off. IMO.
Quote:Right, we've been out there slaughtering people by the thousands. Gosh, I must be up to.....hmmmm......let me see..........ZERO!
LOL!
That would be like blaming timberland for what Bush has done because he lives in the USA too.
Wanda
Momma Angel wrote:mesquite wrote:MA, Intrepid, Lash, great job of deflecting the discussion away from truly "imposing belief" to a whine about nothing.
Mesquite,
What is with you? You are the only one that can feel like someone else is imposing their beliefs on them? Hey, I happen to think if you vote for same sex marriage, you are imposing your beliefs on me.
Big danged deal! It's your right to vote the way you want to vote for whatever reason you vote. There is no law telling you that you have to vote only using a particular method.
This is the hub of it MA. Your belief that the actions of others have some impact in your ability to live your life without being imposed upon. Your stated belief that what makes you uncomfortable should be prohibited so that you don't have to be exposed to it is almost the only thing that brings me back to these threads.
If someone attempts to establish or maintain laws that would infringe on your rights to live your life with full and equal protection under the law then I will take them to task for it, just the way I do here. I am not attempting to impose my beliefs on you. You are entitled to believe whatever you want but your beliefs do not give you the right to prohibit others from living thier lives with equal protection under the law.
mesquite wrote:MA, Intrepid, Lash, great job of deflecting the discussion away from truly "imposing belief" to a whine about nothing.
I can only speak for myself, mesquite, but..... Thank you
J_B Wrote:
Quote:This is the hub of it MA. Your belief that the actions of others have some impact in your ability to live your life without being imposed upon. Your stated belief that what makes you uncomfortable should be prohibited so that you don't have to be exposed to it is almost the only thing that brings me back to these threads.
If someone attempts to establish or maintain laws that would infringe on your rights to live your life with full and equal protection under the law then I will take them to task for it, just the way I do here. I am not attempting to impose my beliefs on you. You are entitled to believe whatever you want but your beliefs do not give you the right to prohibit others from living thier lives with equal protection under the law.
J_B, I completely understand what you and others are saying. I think that is why I get so frustrated about this. I DO understand what you are saying. What I am saying is, if I vote for something that I believe is wrong, I feel I am giving it my stamp of approval. I can't do that. It is honestly that black and white for me.
Mesquite,
As Intrepid said, thank you.
Lash wrote:Mesquite-- What you believe to be a cut and dried Good Guy/White Hat issue is just not that easy to call.
I don't think you get to decide which votes are infringing on people and which aren't.
Let's see, I made a comment that I would not support a tax cut that benefited me, but mortgaged the future of my children.
You countered with an analysis of presidential ads concerned with who got what share. Apples and oranges.
Are you comfortable with a war time tax cut and it's resulting deficit spending, and soaring national debt that will be saddled on our children?
mesquite wrote:When discussing progressive tax rates and relative fairness, it sometime helps to look at history and see where we have been. A chart showing the Maximum marginal tax rate from 1916 to present
can be found here[/u]. Note that during times that this country has been involved in expensive wars, the max rate has been much higher than now. It reached a peak of
94% in 1944/1945.
Cutting through all of the who said what about the tax cuts, here is what the tax rate schedules tell us.
mesquite wrote:georgia brown wrote:im not going to lie mesquite, I can't figure out that chart! Whos who, as far as income. Keeping in mind anyone who gets a refund instead of making out check is not a tax payer. Thats two or three of your six colums. If a low income person recieves alesser tax refund ,That deosn't mean they're being taxed more, It means they're given less. this argument proves positive the fundemental diferences between the two parties. Why is 4.6 A greater % than 5.
Georgia, What the chart shows is the marginal tax brackets (the percent tax for each new dollar earned) before and after the Bush tax cuts. I added a taxable income column to show the income range for each bracket. The income ranges are for a married couple filing jointly.
The 5% reduction on the lowest income range is larger than than the 4.6% given to the top end, but it only applies to the first 1/4 of the old 15% bracket.
Refunds have nothing to do with this chart. They are a function of withholding, and credits.
...Taxable
...Income........................Before..........After.........Delta
$0.to.$14,000.................15%...........10%...........-5%
$14,000.to.$56,800........15%............15%............0%
not much here
$56,800.to.$114,650......28%............25%...........-3%
$114,650.to.$174,700....31%............28%..........-3%
$174,700.to.$311,950....36%............33%..........-3%
Over $311,950...............39.6%..........35%..........-4.6
Largest percent cut here
When you look at the chart, note that the taxable income group which got NO reduction in the marginal tax rates was $14,000 to $56,800.
Keep in mind that those figures are for taxable income, not gross income, so you can see that is a rather large range of income that got nearly squat if no child tax credit was available. I rather think that many people in that income range consider themselves middle class.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=983097#983097
It is inevitable any rational discussion of religionist propositions will become a "whine about nothing", at least so long as one side of the discussion involves those attempting to make a case for religionist propositions; the central, foundational religionist proposition is founded on nothing.
Let's see, I made a comment that I would not support a tax cut that benefited me, but mortgaged the future of my children.
You countered with an analysis of presidential ads concerned with who got what share. Apples and oranges.
__________________
It's sad that you think they're unrelated. You made an assumption that the tax break was of no lasting value. There are people who say you're wrong. There are people who say the tax break boosted the economy and the job market, and that boon can translate to "your children".
It's very short sighted and uncreative to buy the one liberal party line about the tax breaks, and not even entertain another viewpoint.
When at war, you do what you have to do on all fronts. Those who whined about deficit spending decades ago were wrong. It will go up and it will go down. During war time, y9ou can expect it to go up. The economy did improve and the debt will be paid down once again.
I am comfortable with factcheck.org's take on the fairness of Bush's tax cuts.
The point "competing truths" about the tax cuts emphasize that there are competing truths surrounding all of these laws and votes and you shouldn't be so quick to pick out the "imposing group" and the "victim". There are at least two sides to every issue.
Lash wrote:Let's see, I made a comment that I would not support a tax cut that benefited me, but mortgaged the future of my children.
You countered with an analysis of presidential ads concerned with who got what share. Apples and oranges.
__________________
It's sad that you think they're unrelated. You made an assumption that the tax break was of no lasting value. There are people who say you're wrong. There are people who say the tax break boosted the economy and the job market, and that boon can translate to "your children".
Would those "some" be the same "some" of WMD fame and "no nation building" and "bring it on"?
Lash wrote:It's very short sighted and uncreative to buy the one liberal party line about the tax breaks, and not even entertain another viewpoint.
Which liberal party line was that? You don't mean the one about "mortgaging our childrens future" do you? That used to be a conservative line just like "big government is bad" used to be a conservative line.
Lash wrote:When at war, you do what you have to do on all fronts. Those who whined about deficit spending decades ago were wrong. It will go up and it will go down. During war time, you can expect it to go up. The economy did improve and the debt will be paid down once again.
Once again? Could you please point me to when was the last time so that I can bump it up against the
Tax Rate History[/b].
Lash wrote:I am comfortable with factcheck.org's take on the fairness of Bush's tax cuts.
The point "competing truths" about the tax cuts emphasize that there are competing truths surrounding all of these laws and votes and you shouldn't be so quick to pick out the "imposing group" and the "victim". There are at least two sides to every issue.
I gave you two examples of showing concern for others when voting. The second was not as open to interpretation as the tax issue. It was,
"I will support your freedom to practice your religion even though I feel it is a net negative for society."
Remember we got to this point from a discussion about imposing religious beliefs on others such as creationism/ID in schools or preventing same sex unions.
Yeah. And maybe it would be better to stick with that and not cloud the issue.
I happen to agree, in this case, that a vote against same sex marriage is actually denying someone their rights--I just wish that people (read: mesquite) could seriously entertain both sides of an issue. When you used the tax breaks (yes, "mortgaging our children's futures--a worn out sound bite), I thought it should be challenged.
I actually think if the pro-gay marriage contingent attempted to meet the dissenters on their own ground, and really discussed the issue in an understanding way--they may change their minds. Some, anyway.
Your side is as stiffnecked as theirs.
(Now, hold hands and sing, "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony....")
Lash wrote:Yeah. And maybe it would be better to stick with that and not cloud the issue.
I happen to agree, in this case, that a vote against same sex marriage is actually denying someone their rights--I just wish that people (read: mesquite) could seriously entertain both sides of an issue. When you used the tax breaks (yes, "mortgaging our children's futures--a worn out sound bite), I thought it should be challenged.
Help me lash to understand the side that imposes a denial of rights of a segment of the population just because that segment is different.
Lash wrote:I actually think if the pro-gay marriage contingent attempted to meet the dissenters on their own ground, and really discussed the issue in an understanding way--they may change their minds. Some, anyway.
What are you trying to say here? All I see is pretty wrapping on an empty box.
Lash wrote:Your side is as stiffnecked as theirs.
And your side is what, the ostrich side?
mesquite wrote:Lash wrote:When at war, you do what you have to do on all fronts. Those who whined about deficit spending decades ago were wrong. It will go up and it will go down. During war time, you can expect it to go up. The economy did improve and the debt will be paid down once again.
Once again? Could you please point me to when was the last time so that I can bump it up against the
Tax Rate History[/b].
Wow, thats an interesting link!!
It shows that this has been, in any case, the first time ever that taxes have been drastically cut during war time.
It shows that traditionally, when the nation was at war, everyone on the home front was considered to have to chip in to help the war effort, the rich too.
In WW2, the top income rate rose to 94%!
Then again, a historical perspective is refreshing in any case.
For example, remember the indignation of conservatives over how incorrigably liberal John Kerry was, because he wanted to turn back at least some of the tax cuts, at least the ones for the richest?
Even if he'd become president and done that, it would only have brought the top rate up to around 40% ... I wonder how liberal the resident conservatives consider Eisenhower to have been. Under his government, the top rate was 91%.
