Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Brown Eyes there are times when you cant give tax cuts, everyone with some amount of intelligence knows that. President Bush says that instead of raising taxes we should simply keep giving the cuts to the top 1% of Americans, and cut back on other programs (such as Medicare).

I also dont believe you are still so dumb to actually believe that the war in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. It's well known that this war was planned by Bush right when he came into office, and even when running for President. Saddam Hussein, an evil dictator I would agree, had nothing to do with 9/11 and there was no proven connection with Al Qaeda (and just to remind you, since some conservatives seem to have forgotten---Al Qaeda was the coordinators of the 9/11 attacks).

Iraq was an easy revenge target for Bush. Instead of fully pursuing Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, he switched most of our resources to Iraq. And you may say that the WMD argument doesn't mean anything, but I think it does considering that was his whole basis for the war. If he was really worried about our immediate safety don't you think he would have gone after a country with KNOWN capabilities and desires to produce Nuclear weapons like North Korea? Nooo no...cant do that...Iraq we can just drop some bombs on, kill some innocent kids and others....not North Korea.

I never understood the logic "Hey Iraqis, your dictator has killed your people in the past, and is evil, so to help you we will now be killing you and your families...but don't worry it's for the safety of the USA..."

Chris

[strandinthewind]

Here is some unbiased poop on the tax cuts:

Here We Go Again: Bush Exaggerates Tax Cuts
The President can't keep his figures straight. And most people are getting less than he implies.

February 20, 2004
Modified:February 20, 2004
Summary



President Bush stumbled Feb. 19, saying the average tax cut is $1,089. The White House corrected that figure to $1,586. But the fact is that most Americans won't see anywhere near either of those amounts.

As we've said before when disputing equally misleading lowball figures given by Howard Dean, half of all individuals and families will get less than $470, and half will get more. The “average” is misleading because it is inflated by very large cuts given to a relative few at the top.


Analysis



Now that the general election campaign is nearing, President Bush has resumed a sales pitch for the tax cuts he's signed. But he persists in making some misleading claims.

At a 24-minute appearance in the White House complex on Feb. 19, the President wrongly stated that "everybody who pays taxes" is getting a cut, which is not true:

Bush: We cut the taxes on everybody who pays taxes. I don't think it makes sense for tax-cutters to say, okay, you win, and you lose. My attitude was, if you pay taxes, you ought to get relief. And we cut all taxes,

In fact, all taxes were not cut and millions who pay only federal payroll taxes got no benefit from Bush's cuts.

It is true that everybody who paid federal income taxes is getting a cut. But according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center , 35.6 million individuals and families got zero benefit from the Bush cuts because their income was so low they were not paying federal income taxes before the cuts. This number includes 15.1 million workers who are paying federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That's 15 million "taxpayers" who were left out.

The President also bobbled the numbers when describing the average size of the cut. Here's the official White House transcript of what he said, which was wrong, along with the footnotes inserted later by the White House staff to correct the record:

Bush: The tax relief we passed, 11 million* taxpayers this year will save $1,086* off their taxes. . . .

(* 111 million taxpayers will save, on average, $1,586 off their taxes.)

The $1,586 figure is indeed an accurate statement of the average cut received by those who are getting a cut, according to the Treasury Department. However, it is far from typical.

For one thing, the figure does not take into account the 25% of all individuals and families who are receiving zero tax cut this year. It is an average only of those who are getting some cut. When those who get nothing are added in the average cut drops to $1,217, according to the Tax Policy Center.

But most importantly, the average is inflated by the fact that most of the money is going to a relatively few taxpayers at the top of the income scale, as seen from the following table distilled from a more extensive analysis by the Tax Policy Center:

Combined Effect of Bush Tax Cuts 2003

Income
(in thousands) Percent of Households Average Tax Change



Less than 10 23.7 -$8
10-20 16.6 -$307
20-30 13.3 -$638
30-40 9.7 -$825
40-50 7.6 -$1,012
50-75 13.0 -$1,403
75-100 6.8 -$2,543
100-200 6.6 -$3,710
200-500 1.6 -$7,173
500-1,000 0.3 -$22,485
More than 1,000 0.1 -$112,925
Source: Tax Policy Center table T03-0123
Taxpayers making more than $1 million a year get an average cut of nearly $113,000 this year. Such huge cuts at the top tend to pull up the numerical average that the President is fond of citing.

A more meaningful number is the median -- or mid-point. The Tax Policy Center calculates the median cut received for income earned in 2003 is $470.

That means half of all individuals and families get less than that, and half get more.

Even the median figure doesn't give a full picture of how the benefits are spread around, however. Taxpayers make out very differently depending on whether they are married or single, and how many children they have under age 17.

That's because much of the tax relief for 2003 comes in the form of a tax break for married couples -- reduction of the so-called "marriage penalty" -- and a doubling of the tax credit granted for each child under 17, to $1,000 per child. Those do nothing to benefit single taxpayers -- including unmarried workers and millions of elderly widows and widowers, for example. In fact, the Tax Policy Center calculates that nearly 13 million of those over age 65 will get no tax cut.

On the other hand, the Bush cuts do reduce income taxes for many middle-income families to zero this year -- taking them off the federal income tax rolls entirely.

The following table, also from the Tax Policy Center, shows how different types of families in various income ranges make out under the Bush cuts this year:

Combined Effect of Bush Cuts for 2003: Typical Families

(Amounts by which federal income taxes would rise if cuts are repealed)

Income
Single
Married Filing Joint

# of kids under 17–>
0
0
1
2
3

$10,000
$110
$76
$0
$0
$0

$15,000
350
142
610
661
661

$25,000
350
702
1,210
1,661
1,579

$35,000
350
932
1,433
1,897
2,245

$50,000
669
773
1,272
1,773
2,271

$75,000
1,318
1,714
1,817
1,938
2,437

$100,000
2,001
2,596
3,004
3,413
4,510

$125,000
2,695
3,277
3,435
4,094
4,571

$150,000
3,460
4,010
3,918
3,827
4,735

$200,000
5,218
5,623
5,531
4,918
4,364

$500,000
15,585
12,328
12,328
12,328
12,328

$1,000,000
37,713
38,426
38,426
38,426
38,426

Source: Tax Policy Center Table T03-0200




The President is not the only politician who distorts the figures regarding the tax cuts, of course. As we've pointed out before, Howard Dean persisted in a false claim that "sixty percent of us got only $304," when in fact most taxpayers got more.

And some of the points in the President's election-year sales pitch are perfectly valid. For example:

Bush: Nearly 5 million taxpayers will be off the rolls as a result of the tax relief this year.

That's true for federal income taxes -- close to 5 million who previously owed some federal income tax will owe none under the Bush cuts, including many middle-income families with children.

We'll no doubt be hearing more about the tax cuts in the months to come. Both Kerry and Edwards, currently slugging it out for the Democratic nomination, have called for repeal of portions of the Bush cuts that benefit upper-income taxpayers.

http://www.factcheck.org/article145.html#
____________________________________________________________

In the end the majority of economists and I agree the tax cuts provided a spark that helped the economy grow and the economy is still growing. However, all of the aforementioned agree that the out of control deficit spending has stymied the expected growth from the cuts and will severely hinder future growth.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You asking the wrong person

I think income tax should start at $35,000 a year and then progress to 15% tops at say $50,000 a year with no, and I mean NO, deductions period. But, that will sadly never happen because the special interest groups will never allow it, the true liberals will want to punish the rich, and the really rich on the far far right will want to pay even less than that.

I also think the estate tax should be 10% and not a penny more. But, the true liberals would rather tax a dead person's estate at 70% after the first $600,000 or so and the really really rich on the far right want no tax on it whatsoever.

In the end, our tax system is utter crap and the extremes on both sides will never allow the other a moment of peace.

I mean some people want to tax people 50% or more. I think the revolution should occur that day.

I guess I'm what you're calling a "true liberal."

You know, I always thought it was common sense that the more money you make, the more you should have to pay (in terms of the percentage of your salary)...it really baffled me when I realized that there are people in this world who believe that the fact that they make more money means that they're entitled to *keep* more. Because somehow financial success equals virtue?

It's not about wanting to "punish" the rich. It's about those with having more being obligated to help those who have less. The more I think about it, the more this Buddhism thing really seems to be in my blood, or something.

[David]

I support a flat sales tax: tax consumption & people are responsible for what they owe in taxes.

I don't support higher tax rates for higher incomes: that's tyrannical. Neither do I support breaks & loopholes that are given only to the higher-income Americans.

What I really support is far more responsible use of tax revenue by all levels of government. My income is my property, & for the governments to compel me to turn over a percentage & then to squander it & waste it on $300 hammers at the Department of Defense is absolutely nothing short of tyranny -- the kind of tyranny that the Founding Fathers abhorred.

If you have no rights to your property, you have nothing. You are a prole. The underlying philosophy of my political thinking is that the individual is the vessel of life's meaning & worth & dignity, not the state; & that the individual must be protected from the state in a number of significant ways. Remember, when a state butts heads with an individual, who wins & who loses?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

I guess I'm what you're calling a "true liberal."

You know, I always thought it was common sense that the more money you make, the more you should have to pay (in terms of the percentage of your salary)...it really baffled me when I realized that there are people in this world who believe that the fact that they make more money means that they're entitled to *keep* more. Because somehow financial success equals virtue?

It's not about wanting to "punish" the rich. It's about those with having more being obligated to help those who have less. The more I think about it, the more this Buddhism thing really seems to be in my blood, or something.

Well, you do pay more money - just the same percent. A person making 100,000 would pay $15,000 and a person making $55,000 would pay $8,250. That makes sense to me Again, I think it has to be this way because the sliding scale with deductions is just fraud laden and will continue to be that way.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

I support a flat sales tax: tax consumption & people are responsible for what they owe in taxes.

I don't support higher tax rates for higher incomes: that's tyrannical. Neither do I support breaks & loopholes that are given only to the higher-income Americans.

What I really support is far more responsible use of tax revenue by all levels of government. My income is my property, & for the governments to compel me to turn over a percentage & then to squander it & waste it on $300 hammers at the Department of Defense is absolutely nothing short of tyranny -- the kind of tyranny that the Founding Fathers abhorred.

If you have no rights to your property, you have nothing. You are a prole. The underlying philosophy of my political thinking is that the individual is the vessel of life's meaning & worth & dignity, not the state; & that the individual must be protected from the state in a number of significant ways. Remember, when a state butts heads with an individual, who wins & who loses?

Once again, I agree with you!

[markolas]

Originally Posted by David

If you have no rights to your property, you have nothing.

Speak for yourself. I'm a whole lot more than the things I own.

[David]

Originally Posted by markolas

Speak for yourself. I'm a whole lot more than the things I own.

You misunderstand, markolas. Of course you are more than the things you own. We are all of us more than the things we own.

When I say, "If you have no rights to your property, you have nothing," what I mean is that it's the right itself -- not the actual property -- that allows you to live the kind of life you deem worthy.

Property rights are absolutely essential to any free society -- that is, a society in which individuals are free to pursue their happiness so long as they don't infringe on those very same rights belonging to their fellow citizens.

The principle of it is so important because it implies something essential: you have a right to property that cannot be abrogated by the state. It cannot be eliminated by a nasty president or a Congress of any political party. That right of yours -- like your rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness -- is YOURS; it does not & cannot belong, ever, to any government instituted on Earth. You, the individual, are the owner of your property; & you are therefore ipso facto not at the mercy of the whims of your fellow citizens to strip you of that property at their discretion or the discretion of your elected leaders.

If you have no right to property that supersedes the political body in which you live, then no power on Earth (or elsewhere) can assure you of your right to liberty or even life itself. If you are in every respect SECONDARY to the state, the state can annihilate you, can crush you under its massively impersonal boot. That is the importance of your right to property.

I hate to sound like a Libertarian -- I'm not one. But this principle of rights that you have -- rights that are not given to you by a government but rights that you are born possessing by virtue of the fact that you are a human being -- is essential to our constitutional republic, & was equally important to the Founding Fathers.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by David

You misunderstand, markolas. Of course you are more than the things you own. We are all of us more than the things we own.

When I say, "If you have no rights to your property, you have nothing," what I mean is that it's the right itself -- not the actual property -- that allows you to live the kind of life you deem worthy.

Property rights are absolutely essential to any free society -- that is, a society in which individuals are free to pursue their happiness so long as they don't infringe on those very same rights belonging to their fellow citizens.

The principle of it is so important because it implies something essential: you have a right to property that cannot be abrogated by the state. It cannot be eliminated by a nasty president or a Congress of any political party. That right of yours -- like your rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness -- is YOURS; it does not & cannot belong, ever, to any government instituted on Earth. You, the individual, are the owner of your property; & you are therefore ipso facto not at the mercy of the whims of your fellow citizens to strip you of that property at their discretion or the discretion of your elected leaders.

If you have no right to property that supersedes the political body in which you live, then no power on Earth (or elsewhere) can assure you of your right to liberty or even life itself. If you are in every respect SECONDARY to the state, the state can annihilate you, can crush you under its massively impersonal boot. That is the importance of your right to property.

I hate to sound like a Libertarian -- I'm not one. But this principle of rights that you have -- rights that are not given to you by a government but rights that you are born possessing by virtue of the fact that you are a human being -- is essential to our constitutional republic, & was equally important to the Founding Fathers.

Well, I'm not really talking about the state. What I find objectionable is people who think they have no obligation to help or contribute to the well-being of anyone other than themselves and possibly their immediate families, and who think that wealth is a sign of moral superiority. That's the problem that I have with libertarianism/economic conservatism.

On a certain level, I agree that we have a fundamental right to our property; but on another level...we can't really "own" anything.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

Well, I'm not really talking about the state. What I find objectionable is people who think they have no obligation to help or contribute to the well-being of anyone other than themselves and possibly their immediate families, and who think that wealth is a sign of moral superiority. That's the problem that I have with libertarianism/economic conservatism.

On a certain level, I agree that we have a fundamental right to our property; but on another level...we can't really "own" anything.

Interestingly, the amount of private donations by the wealthy is staggering and this is on top of the huge amount of taxes paid by them. I mean Blook at Turner and Gates alone not to mention Oprah, who are amongst the weatlthiest of the wealthiest.

But others donate and often. So, I think the statement "people who think they have no obligation to help or contribute to the well-being of anyone other than themselves and possibly their immediate families . . . . " is not very fair though a small minority of those people may exist.

Here are two sites on this:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared...sNav=pb&id=193

http://www.smallfoundations.org/abou...nal_generosity

[markolas]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interestingly, the amount of private donations by the wealthy is staggering and this is on top of the huge amount of taxes paid by them. I mean Blook at Turner and Gates alone not to mention Oprah, who are amongst the weatlthiest of the wealthiest.

I'm not saying that wealthy people don't give to charity. But it's a drop in the bucket. Why should someone who makes $10 million a year piss and moan if they have to pay $4 million in taxes? So it means they can't have that 5th vacation house on the south of France...the farthest away from Texas I've ever traveled is Missouri.

I guess I just find extravagance obscene.

Like my friend who lives alone and yet just bought a 5 bedroom house and complains about being shackled to a job he hates, but can't afford to quit because he has all this newfound "responsibility." Yet he looks down on me as a slacker...umm...he's the one who's up to his eyeballs in debt while I don't buy a damn thing I haven't worked to earn the money to buy. Exactly who is the responsible one in this scenario? I realize that has nothing to do with the rest of the post, it's just a little tangent.

But others donate and often. So, I think the statement "people who think they have no obligation to help or contribute to the well-being of anyone other than themselves and possibly their immediate families . . . . " is not very fair though a small minority of those people may exist.

It's not unfair. I've met people who think this.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

I'm not saying that wealthy people don't give to charity. But it's a drop in the bucket. Why should someone who makes $10 million a year piss and moan if they have to pay $4 million in taxes? So it means they can't have that 5th vacation house on the south of France...the farthest away from Texas I've ever traveled is Missouri.

I guess I just find extravagance obscene.

But that test is subjective. Some of the really poor may find 100,000 a year and two cars equally as obscene. So, should we listen to them and tax $100,000 at 50% Moreover, should we ban anything but the cheapest of goods - ban all designer labels and the like - and all wear uniforms and who gets to make the decision as to what stays and what goes. Should we also never buy any relative luxury items for ourselves; never splurge one day of something completely frivilous for any reason even if it is a concert ticket Anyway, I think you get my drift.

Originally Posted by markolas

It's not unfair. I've met people who think this.

I thought you were saying all rich people are like that and was noting that that gross generalization is unfair and unsupported by the data out there.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But that test is subjective. Some of the really poor may find 100,000 a year and two cars equally as obscene. So, should we listen to them and tax $100,000 at 50%

You're mixing up two different parts of my post here. I never said we should tax rich people to make sure they're not extravagant. Personally, I wouldn't complain if I made $100,000 a year and paid half of it in income taxes. I could live quite easily on $700 a month if it wasn't for this damn car note.

Moreover, should we ban anything but the cheapest of goods - ban all designer labels and the like - and all wear uniforms and who gets to make the decision as to what stays and what goes. Should we also never buy any relative luxury items for ourselves; never splurge one day of something completely frivilous for any reason even if it is a concert ticket Anyway, I think you get my drift.

I never said anything about banning anything. Drama queen.

I thought you were saying all rich people are like that and was noting that that gross generalization is unfair and unsupported by the data out there.

I never said all rich people are like that. The people I've heard say that aren't even rich.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by markolas

Personally, I wouldn't complain if I made $100,000 a year and paid half of it in income taxes.

I would. Not because I wouldn't want to help people who need it, but because government spending is out of control. When they can eliminate their wasteful spending and use my tax money to help those who need it (i.e. when they can put much more funding into social programs), then they can tax me for half of my income. Heck knows I don't need all the money I make and I don't spend it all on myself, anyway. Until then, I'll donate my money instead of being robbed by the government to pay for trivial and insignificant **** when my money could be used to put food on a family's table or send a single mother to college.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by dissention

I would. Not because I wouldn't want to help people who need it, but because government spending is out of control.

Well, I say that with the assumption that the money would be funding things that were actually beneficial to people instead of, you know...illegal wars and things like that.