$318 Billion Deal Is Set in Congress for Cutting Taxes

As the rich move higher the middle class moves lower. It is a fact!

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

The only thing this administration has done is things that further enrich the rich!

I assume then that you consider those making less than $26,000 a year to be "rich", since it was the first round of Bush tax cuts that effectively eliminated the federal income tax liability of this group to $0.00. These people used to pay federal income tax, and as a result of Bush's tax cuts no longer do so.

So, either:

1) You think these people are rich.

2) You think removing the tax burden from these poor people somehow benefits the rich.

3) You are making empty statements either in ignorance or in spite of the facts.

0 Replies

Scrat, It's that old saw about the rich pays the significant portion of the taxes, so they are eligible for a greater portion of the tax cuts. Which is essentially true. The biggest problem now facing us is the deficit spending of this administration that has mortgaged future generations. The ten year tax cut plan will do nothing to improve our economy; our unemployment is increasing at an alarming rate, the travel industry is being decimated which means all transportation, lodging, and the restaurant businesses; most retail stores are losing business, and deflation has taken a foothold in our economy. It's a scary time on many fronts. c.i.

0 Replies

Scrat
I believe Bill was referring to the AMT. Do you know or understand what that is and how it effects the middle class tax burden in this Nation?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I believe Bill was referring to the AMT. Do you know or understand what that is and how it effects the middle class tax burden in this Nation?

When Bill makes such sweeping and nonsensical statements it is not only not evident to what he is referring, but it is of no import. If he means to argue against a specific provision of the tax law, he ought to do so, and with facts, not hyperbole.

And as to the AMT issue, I think it merely points out what is wrong with the broader tax code and the need for a simplified--ideally FLAT--tax.

If we are going to have an income tax--and I think it would be better if we did not--we should have a flat rate, phased in at the poverty margin and (here's something to really argue about) without withholding. Tax payers should make monthly tax payments to the government after each month, based on that month's real income.

0 Replies

Scrat, The flat tax idea has been kicked around in Washington many times without success. I doubt that'll happen during my life time. c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Scrat, The flat tax idea has been kicked around in Washington many times without success. I doubt that'll happen during my life time. c.i.

Hey, if we have to wait a bit, that's cool. "Progress, not perfection." Cool

0 Replies

Quote:

0 Replies

Got into a conversation this morning about the economy with a very knowledgeable friend. We are in a situation similar to post WWII, he said, BUT our personal debt ratio (vs. high savings ratio post WWII) is the killer. Which makes me wonder: does anyone here have the stats on average debt ratio per income category?

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

Quote:

Very clever! I love the way you took a perfectly reasonable statement completely out of context and made it funny! Well done! Once again you've added tremendously to the topic being discussed!

Of course, if we put the statement in context it doesn't seem quite so silly (Bush said this during the press conference with Pres. Arroyo of the PhPhilippinesn the context of answering a question about the linkage between terrorism and poverty)...

Quote:

Q -- and about the MILF -- your offer of assistance in the MILF problem, because we have poverty problem there now.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, my offer of assistance, it depends upon the MILF choosing peace as a peaceful reconciliation of issues. If they continue to want to use terror and force, we will be involved to the extent that the President invites us to be involved, within the constitution of the Philippine government.

....

Q And the poverty problem?

PRESIDENT BUSH: And the poverty problem -- listen, this nation is committed to dealing with poverty. First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill. And so it's important to understand -- people are susceptible to the requirement by these extremists, but I refuse to put a -- put killers into a demographic category based upon income. After all, a lot of the top al Qaeda people were comfortable middle-class citizens. And so one of the things you've got to do is to make sure we distinguish between hate and poverty.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030519-6.html

But again, this is an excellent example of how a reasonable statement can be made to seem absurd if simply presented outside its original context. Thanks for the laugh, and keep up the excellent work! Cool

0 Replies

Tartar, Not by income category, but the per capita debt is sitting in the over $80,000 plus category. c.i.

0 Replies

Nice Scrat. Wasn't familiar with the interview.

0 Replies

Hate has no bounderies by income level - it never did. c.i.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Got into a conversation this morning about the economy with a very knowledgeable friend. We are in a situation similar to post WWII, he said, BUT our personal debt ratio (vs. high savings ratio post WWII) is the killer. Which makes me wonder: does anyone here have the stats on average debt ratio per income category?

Sorry I don't have the stats you requested, but the issue of personal debt reminded me of a point I thought might provoke some interesting discussion...

As citizens of the US, the national debt is--in a very real way--the personal debt of every citizen. Break it down any way you like (total debt divided by number of taxpayers?) but we each owe some amount of that debt. It is yours and mine.

That being the case, and paying down our debt being a good thing to do, the question becomes:

Which debt should you pay down first?

Now, it seems to me that the logical answer is to pay down our highest interest rate debt first, and lowest last. This means we ought to pay down our credit cards, boat loans, school loans, mortgages, car loans, etc... first, and then worry about paying down our personal chunk of the lower interest federal debt last. It's simple, sound economics.

Which means that cutting taxes to leave more money in the hands of taxpayers is the logical way to go. Said taxpayers can then use the additional money to pay down higher interest rate debt, and if that means the federal debt sticks around a little longer or grows during that timeframe, so what? It's the best loan we have, and should be the last one we worry about paying off.

(I recognize that some will disagree vehemently with this argument, and I welcome your comments, but please keep it civil and try to avoid the insults and personal comments that tend to derail discussions here. Thanks.) Very Happy

0 Replies

What GWB said has the same context - both in and out. It shows his contempt for anyone that is "lesser" than he!!!!!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Nice Scrat. Wasn't familiar with the interview.

Neither was I, but I could tell immediately what the context of the quote had to be, and it took a fraction of a second to find the original at the source. Very Happy

0 Replies

As of June 20, 2003, the national debt was $6,598,471,605,777, and assuming the US population at 285,000,000, the per capita debt is over $23,000. And, I might add, it's growing. c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

As of June 20, 2003, the national debt was $6,598,471,605,777, and assuming the US population at 285,000,000, the per capita debt is over $23,000. And, I might add, it's growing. c.i.

CI - I have some savings bonds--gifts mostly. These and many, many others like them are part of that national debt total.

They are also, simultaneously a function of personal savings and investment by individuals in this country. Simply citing the amount of the national debt is certainly a shocker, but like many statistics it doesn't mean much until you... well, consider what it means. :wink:

0 Replies

Scrat, I make only one observation; a too high national debt during worsening economic periods will not help our economy recover. The economy of today is much different than our economy after WWII. c.i.

0 Replies

Quote:

I recognize that some will disagree vehemently with this argument, and I welcome your comments, but please keep it civil and try to avoid the insults and personal comments that tend to derail discussions here. Thanks.)

Scrat.
You continually make statements such as the one above. I think it's about time you begin to practice what you preach. You continually provoke people with your attitude and belligerence and then complain when you get the same treatment in return. Sorry for being so blunt but it's time you look in the mirror. I have no objection to what you say and I doubt that in general neither do many others. It the how that irks people.

0 Replies

$318 Billion Deal Is Set in Congress for Cutting Taxes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know