Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bush Tax Cut Soaked The Rich  
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3172 times:

OpEd piece from today's WSJ concludes:

Quote:
Tax rates on higher incomes have been halved, but the federal tax share of the top 1% has nearly doubled. And the budget deficit has fallen.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1187...d=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

That's right boys and girls, the share of the US federal income tax borne by the richest 1% of households has doubled under Bush!

  • The richest 1% now pay 35.7% of all US federal income taxes, up from 19% in 1980 before supply-side tax cuts were implemented
  • The richest 5% now pay 56.2% of all US federal income taxes versus 37% in 1980
  • The richest 10% now pay 67.6% of all US federal income taxes versus 49% in 1980
  • The richest 25% now pay 84.4% of US federal income taxes versus 84% in 1980

    So much for the notion that the rich benefit at the expense of the poor. The rich are paying more total taxes than ever before. Their share of the tax burden is growing, yet the deficit is falling, tax revenues are growing and the number of people joining the millionaire ranks are growing as well.

    The notion that tax cuts are a burden on the poor and working classes is simply false and facts prove it.

  • 76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
     
    User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17494 posts, RR: 45
    Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3160 times:

    Quoting Pope (Thread starter):
    The richest 25% now pay 84.4% of US federal income taxes versus 84% in 1980

    But they each got a new Lexus with the tax cut!!!! Wink



    E pur si muove -Galileo
    User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

    While I agree with you and plenty of people with more degrees in business and math fields than this entire website combined agree with you. Someone is going to chime in and tell you that you are an idiot and Bush is only out to screw the poor.

    It's common sense- you can't get money from people who don't have it. Now if only banks and credit card companies could figure that out.

    [Edited 2007-08-24 18:40:08]

    User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3122 times:

    Interesting, because there exists a loophole in the tax law: that if one makes over a certain amount (I believe it is in the Billions), they don't pay taxes at all

    There was a report not too long ago in Cleveland about this; and if I am not mistaken, the former Browns owner, Al Lerner, was one of the people that didn't have to pay taxes.


    User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3097 times:

    Quoting Pope (Thread starter):
    The notion that tax cuts are a burden on the poor and working classes is simply false and facts prove it.

    Get the duct tape out. Falcons head is about to explode.

    But you know, if we can get 35.7 out of the top 1% and 84% out of the top 25%, then surely they can give a more, like 50% and 90%.  wink 


    User currently offlineOU812 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3094 times:

    Quoting Pope (Thread starter):
    The notion that tax cuts are a burden on the poor and working classes is simply false and facts prove it.

    Indeed Pope!

    But do you think these facts will be acknowledged by Falcon84 & the Flamers? flamed 

    Nope!

     no 

    From the article:
    The deficit this fiscal year is expected to be $158 billion, a meager 1.2% of GDP. Since the Bush tax cuts of 2003, the budget deficit has fallen by $217 billion mostly because of a continuing torrid pace of revenue growth

    Don't hear too much about the deficit now from the liberal media. The lib media made the deficit front page news when "it was reported/speculated the deficit may hit 400 billion. But very little is said now, now that reporting it would be a positive for Bush!

    Pricks!


    User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

    Quoting Pope (Thread starter):
    So much for the notion that the rich benefit at the expense of the poor. The rich are paying more total taxes than ever before. Their share of the tax burden is growing, yet the deficit is falling, tax revenues are growing and the number of people joining the millionaire ranks are growing as well.

    I've also heard that the government is experiencing record revenues as well, even with the lower tax rates. Things to make you go "Hmmmm. Is there a connection?"


    User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
    Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

    Quoting OU812 (Reply 5):

    Lib vs Con warrior to the rescue! Do you never tire of this partisan BS?  sarcastic 



    Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
    User currently offlineYOWza From Nepal, joined Jul 2005, 4887 posts, RR: 15
    Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

    Quoting Pope (Thread starter):
    # The richest 1% now pay 35.7% of all US federal income taxes, up from 19% in 1980 before supply-side tax cuts were implemented
    # The richest 5% now pay 56.2% of all US federal income taxes versus 37% in 1980
    # The richest 10% now pay 67.6% of all US federal income taxes versus 49% in 1980
    # The richest 25% now pay 84.4% of US federal income taxes versus 84% in 1980

    While I don't dispute the validity of this information I do question the context. 2004 vs 1980? Come on, how many administrations have been in power in that period. For all we know a 2004 vs 199x comparison might show that the rich are paying less than they were in 199x? You can't just pick and choose information, you need to be comprehensive, complete and sequential when making these types of studies otherwise you're just a bullshit merchant with a few tables of data in your article trying to get noticed.

    The article also makes no mention of cronyism, it is possible that "the rich" are paying more in tax but that certain friends of the administration are paying less. I'm not saying that's the case, but it is a distinct possibility.

    The article also does not take into account the companies that have re-located offshore. Inevitably companies that move take a lot of money with them. A respectable portion of which is paid to the American elite in the form of bonuses. However though clever (ab)use of tax laws this is missed.

    Anyways, I'll stop with my rational thoughts there as I don't want to get flamed by the usual suspects.

    YOWza



    12A whenever possible.
    User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3018 times:

    Quoting Pope (Thread starter):
    The richest 25% now pay 84.4% of US federal income taxes versus 84% in 1980

    It should be 100%

    Same with inheritance tax.


    User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
    Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

    Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 11):
    It should be 100%

    Same with inheritance tax.

    Care to explain why us rich white devils should pay 100% of the taxes or do you just want to throw the same liberal "tax the rich" stuff out there with nothing to back it up?



    "If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
    User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

    Quoting YOWza (Reply 9):
    I do question the context. 2004 vs 1980?

    The data you seek is available from the IRS website.

    I've previously posted the link, I'll try to find it and repost it later on this thread. I think the reason that 1980 was used is that it was the last year before the Reagan supply side tax cuts began.

    Quoting YOWza (Reply 9):
    The article also does not take into account the companies that have re-located offshore. Inevitably companies that move take a lot of money with them. A respectable portion of which is paid to the American elite in the form of bonuses. However though clever (ab)use of tax laws this is missed.

    Anyone who wants to argue about offshore movements of US corporations in order to avoid US income tax needs to first read US Internal Revenue Code Section 367(a). This section makes a US transferor pay income tax at the ordinary rates on the appreciation of any asset transferred from the US to a foreign corporation. Therefore, there is no short-term tax benefit from expatriating from the US to avoid current taxation. The savings from an expatriation is that future income THAT IS NOT EARNED IN THE UNITED STATES is no longer taxed in the US. The US currently imposes a worldwide basis of taxation on US citizens and US entities (corporations).

    Build a factory in Korea (for example). Sell that product to Korea and re-invest the money to expand your Korean factory, the US government wants you to pay current income tax to the US on the Korean sourced income (notwithstanding the fact that the Korean government has already taxed you on the Korean income).

    There are exceptions to these rules but the exceptions to what is known as the Subpart F regime are some of the most complicated rules in the US tax code.

    Note that most of the rest of the world has a territorial basis of taxation where a company is only taxed on the income sourced within the taxing jurisdiction. For example UK based companies pay UK taxes on their UK sourced income and no UK taxes on their income sourced out side the UK. The US is in the very small minority of countries that impose this global basis of taxation. I don't know what's abusive about arranging your affairs so that you can compete globally under a set of rules that levels the playing field for the participants.

    From a policy perspective, a global basis of taxation discourages US companies from developing intangible assets (including pharamceuticals, technology and other intellectual property) within the US because once that intangible is developed you've subjected yourself to US taxation on it.

    For example, if you were a scientist who was working on a cure for cancer, the last thing he'd want to do is set up a company to conduct all the R&D in the US. Instead, he'd be better off setting up a Irish (Ireland has favorable tax treaties) holding company to own the intangible and then a US subsidiary to carry out the research. Once the research paid off, the Irish company could then license the intangible to the US subsidary for purpose of selling the product in the US. Foreign sales would not be subject to US taxation under this structure. In contrast if he set up the US company and nothing else, 100% of the sales from that product anywhere in the world would be subject to immediate US taxation.


    User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3002 times:

    Update: a quick google search solidifies the fact that some sort of loophole exists: the ultra-wealthy don't have to pay any tax on medicare or social security.

    In fact, the Democrat haters here will be pleased: I found a site that attacks John Kerry and his fortune for not paying his own taxes.

    Again, I don't have much time, but I will chime in later.

    ----------------------------

    On a side note, my take. Yes, the wealthy provide much income, say 33% (or whatever the tax average is) on a $100k/yr earnings is noting compared to one on a $100m/yr earnings. On the other hand, the link provided is an opinion piece, ant his line:

    Quote:
    The supply-side revenue effects on the rich are remarkable: Tax rates on higher incomes have been halved, but the federal tax share of the top 1% has nearly doubled. And the budget deficit has fallen. That's what happens when tax policy gets the incentives right.

    really bothers me, since after 2 years of economics, I learned that Reaganomics, aka Supply-Side Economics (or Trickle-Down economics), don't work. The point of which is to give the rich tax breaks, in hopes the savings will "trickle-dwon" to the lesser paid people, seldom happens...the tax breaks go strait to top-level's pockets, not as the government intended.

    Just my  twocents 

    Anyways, Pope, I will take your calling of me, and I'll do the best that I can to prove my point. ( $100 to a poor college student sounds appetizing  biggrin  , just kidding, you can keep your check for more important things)

    Regards,
    N231YE


    User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3000 times:

    Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 12):
    Care to explain why us rich white devils should pay 100% of the taxes or do you just want to throw the same liberal "tax the rich" stuff out there with nothing to back it up?

    That's easy. It's simply class envy coupled with an absolute ignorance of basic economics.


    User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2986 times:

    Quoting N231YE (Reply 14):
    the ultra-wealthy don't have to pay any tax on medicare or social security.

    And why should they? The incredibly wealthy don't need social security or medicare as they have more than enough funds for their own medical and retirement plans. In fact, I wish I could opt out of social security taxes even at my income level and spend or invest that money as I wished.

    However, contrary to your first post, there is a HUGE between not paying social security and medicare taxes versus not paying taxes at all.


    User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2982 times:

    Quoting N231YE (Reply 14):
    Update: a quick google search solidifies the fact that some sort of loophole exists: the ultra-wealthy don't have to pay any tax on medicare or social security.

    You're wording this wrong. We are talking about income taxes which are different than payroll taxes. People earning over the medicare wage base (I think it's like $91,000/yr in 2007 and is index annually for inflation) do not pay social security taxes on their earned income. Payroll taxes are not income taxes. In fact, if you search on some of my prior posts, I've argued that democrats need to get on board and advocate a whole sale reform package for payroll taxes because they are the most regressive taxes in the IRC.

    I was also the one who argued that if people were serious about jump starting the economy in 2002 by helping the middle class, the payroll tax needed to be reformed by changing the wage caps into wage floors. Exempt the first $40,000 from payroll tax and set no upper limit to it.

    Finally, the payroll tax is often the only federal tax many families pay. I think you can earn up into $40,000 or $50,000 and completely avoid income taxes if you're a family of 4 but the payroll tax hits dollar 1 of everyone's earned income.

    Quoting N231YE (Reply 14):
    ( $100 to a poor college student sounds appetizing , just kidding, you can keep your check for more important things)

    Hey my offer still stands. I'm fortunate enough to have the $100 and would gladly give it to an enterprising college student who did the research. If it's so simple to find, you could be looking at an effective hourly wage of over $400/hr (tax-free to boot).

    [Edited 2007-08-24 21:29:38]

    User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2953 times:

    I'm in no way disputing these numbers but they say more about the evolution of the general spreading of wealth within the US than anything else.
    In the last few years , with the tax-cuts, it has gone so far that today the top 1% of wealthy people in the US have +40% of all wealth and the TOP 5% own more than 60% of all wealth in the US.

    The economic growth of the last few years in the US has almost uniquely gone to the top 20% of wealthy people while the rest have had a status quo or even have gone backwards in regards to general wealth level.

    So your numbers in this context leads to a whole different conclusion IMHO.

    Better read up in the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances, they come to a very different conclusion as to the effects of the tax cuts under this government.



    [edit post]
    User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2947 times:

    Quoting ArniePie (Reply 18):
    Better read up in the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances, they come to a very different conclusion as to the effects of the tax cuts under this government.

    I'd be interest in reading this. Can you post a link or tell me which Federal Reserve bank this is posted on?

    (I hate how the Fed doesn't post all its research on one main page instead leaving it up to each branch to post its own documents).


    User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2946 times:

    Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 12):
    Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 11):
    It should be 100%
    Same with inheritance tax.

    Care to explain why us rich white devils should pay 100% of the taxes or do you just want to throw the same liberal "tax the rich" stuff out there with nothing to back it up?

    Texan,
    I've seen your postings before-- you cannot possibly be naive enough to think that you could issue of statement featuring that magnitude of idiocy, sans any form of corroboration/justification other than "class" envy, and expect not to be effectively challenged/scrutinized therefore. Sad.


    User currently offlineDuff44 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1723 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2939 times:

    If I'm paying anything above 0% income tax to the government, I'm always going to feel like I'm being screwed no matter what.

    If I made $6/hr I'd feel that way, and if I made $20 billion I'd feel that way.


    The whole system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch...



    I'll rassle ya for a bowl of bacon!
    User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2937 times:

    Quoting Pope (Reply 19):
    I'd be interest in reading this. Can you post a link or tell me which Federal Reserve bank this is posted on?

    Sorry Pope ,I read a paper print about it but I know that NY university economics department (proff. Edward Wolff) used to refer to it also.
    I'll try Googling it, it must be on the net somewhere.
    Post a link if I find it.



    [edit post]
    User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2933 times:

    Quoting Duff44 (Reply 21):
    The whole system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch...

    My personal opinion is either:
    A) A Flat Tax Rate on Income Tax
    B) Abolishing the income tax altogether in favor of a national sales tax.

    I'm sure someone will flame me in disagreement.


    User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2922 times:

    Quoting ArniePie (Reply 22):
    Sorry Pope ,I read a paper print about it but I know that NY university economics department (proff. Edward Wolff) used to refer to it also.

    Can you give me an idea of how long ago this was so I can focus my search?


    User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
    Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2922 times:

    Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 23):
    A Flat Tax Rate on Income Tax

    The problem here is that this tax would have the poor folks who pay no taxes (and actually get money through the EIC) would actually have to pay some taxes...and we all know that would be met with uproar from the left.

    Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 23):
    Abolishing the income tax altogether in favor of a national sales tax.

    Interesting idea in my mind goes against the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Also, what do you do with the various local sales taxes that are used for state, county, and city services? Do those get tacked on to things?

    Neal Boortz and Rep. Linder have been pushing the Fair Tax plan where there is a national sales tax and then rebates based on a standard set of items needed for daily life (food, etc.) but I wonder about the actual implementation of such a plan. Things like the imbedded tax in goods coming out and us paying less for an item just don't hold for me. Why would I (if I were a merchant or supplier) reduce my cost even if the imbedded tax is gone? That's pure profit to me. I just think any attempt to bring this plan to fruition would be ripped apart in committee and be something perhaps worse than the current system.

    I'll almost take the devil I know versus the one I don't.

    Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 23):
    I'm sure someone will flame me in disagreement.

    You most likely will. We are of course bad folks for daring say we pay enough in taxes. We should want to pay more always.



    "If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
    User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2923 times:

    Looks like the Federal reserve is coming out with the new report in dec. 2007 (last one was from 2004 IIRC) so before december you wont be able to read up on it online, sorry.

    BTW they usually can be found on federalreserve.gov, so I suspect the newest one will be posted there also.



    [edit post]
    25 Duff44 : I like option B...
    26 Pope : The flat tax (aka the National Retail Sales Tax) will never see the light of day. Hell, I'm willing to be that it never see a Ways and Means committee
    27 Yellowstone : Bad idea. Sales taxes are almost always, if not always, regressive, as the more money you earn, the less you spend on goods versus investing it. Anyw
    28 Post contains images FlyDeltaJets87 : The other downside that always pops up is that many items, especially expensive ones would go to the black market to avoid the tax rates, which is so
    29 Post contains images ArniePie : No need to bring the flaming equipment out , however there are some consequences with both your suggestions. They are not bad as an idea but do certa
    30 Bhill : FlyDelta...I'll start the initial ignition. Sales Taxes are the most regressive type of taxes. Especially to the poor. Say you have a 8.5% sales tax o
    31 DeltaGator : It's right around 90K or so. You still pay Medicare taxes up to that rate in a certain year and then you're off the hook until January 1st of the nex
    32 Aa757first : Like other said, I have a problem with this. Just think of a few problems this would cause. Delaware has no sales tax at all. This helps them attract
    33 PPVRA : Isn't Florida all sales tax? Check out The Fair Tax Book, it's very interesting. It's a proposal to replace, simplify the tax system (not increase or
    34 DeltaGator : A lot of that has to do with the weakness of the dollar compared to some foreign currencies. Businesses yes but that is more the corporate tax code.
    35 Aa757first : Probably. She's been doing it for years, before Germany even had the Euro, so I don't think that's the whole reason. Plus, if you slap a 23% tax on s
    36 DeltaGator : Florida has no state income tax. If I recall my home state history correctly we (still a property owner there though no longer a resident) have a sta
    37 Yellowstone : Absolutely true, but there's only so much you can do to cut your spending. Even among those who do save, there's a big difference between people who
    38 Pope : Florida's Constitution allows for the possibility of an income tax with a 2/3 popular vote. So while technically the possibility is there, there real
    39 RJdxer : We are up to post 39 and the better part of the day is gone. Either Falcon is asleep or had a stroke and keeled over dead when he read this thread.
    40 Post contains images FlyDeltaJets87 : Well, I won't count that as flaming because you're making a valid argument and backing it up; not just calling the idea "stupid" and brushing it asid
    41 Alias1024 : Sorry Pope, getting your income tax rate cut is NOT getting soaked. Nice try though. First you say it's doubled under Bush, then you immediately post
    42 RFields5421 : Well, did he have any INCOME to pay taxes upon? If he's wealthy and in the past put his after taxes paid money in to savings and such - why should he
    43 Falcon84 : Falcon was at work, thank you, which didn't obviously enter your mind. And if he soaked the rich, then that's wrong. No one should get "soaked" by ta
    44 Post contains links Gunsontheroof : I think most of them expect that you spend your day hunched over your keyboard, ready to pounce at the first sign of a thread such as this one. I don
    45 RJdxer : And you know what, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that since as they get richer they pay more taxes. There is nothing that says you can't be
    46 Gunsontheroof : I don't care much for predatory capitalism or obscene concentrations of wealth and decision-making power. I find the whole system to be grotesquely a
    47 CaptOveur : How is that tin foil hat fitting? A little tight it sounds like. There are people in this country who pay zero taxes. They honestly believe the feder
    48 N231YE : Interesting, I can't seem to find the article on Cleveland.com (not even any online archives). I am going to guess the article was published in the Cl
    49 RFields5421 : Whether or not the will need it doesn't matter - the fact is they pay many times more into SS than most people, but there is a cap as to how much the
    50 Post contains images David L : Yes we have income tax in the UK. We pay 22% on income up to just over £34,000 and 40% on income above that. Our first £5000 or so is tax-free.
    51 N231YE : Thanks for the explanation. Could have possibly been what the Cleveland Plain Dealer was talking about, though I do admit that they can be a screwy n
    52 L-188 : After seeing his response, I think he might have gotten winged. Yup, it is that double standard that the media doesn't see. Fire your professor, he h
    53 RJdxer : Taking? I'd love to hear the explanation of that. If someone puts their money to work and makes more money with it, how is that taking? If someone ta
    54 Gunsontheroof : I wasn't inferring that wealth was being stolen (at least in the most basic sense of the word), but rather that in the capitalist system, unlimited e
    55 Post contains links RJdxer : But money is not finite. http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/ If we live in a finite economy, then there must have been a lot more
    56 Yellowstone : The earth is finite, ergo any economies limited to the earth must also be finite. They may get very big, but at the end of the day there are finite s
    57 Post contains images OU812 : L-188, What do you expect from a liberal professor! According to them, Reagan & all conservatives are stupid, even when the proof is undeniable, cont
    58 Post contains links and images OU812 : That's total BS! America gives more to the world in total than any other nation or combination of nations. Gunsontheroof, you're being nothing but on
    59 Post contains images OU812 : Really Flaming Falcon84 , Just the other day you went on another one of your anti-Bush/conservative tyraids over how Carl Rove made the rich, richer.
    60 Falcon84 : We had a surplis in the 90's. Enough said.
    61 Post contains images OU812 : We had 911 in 2001 & a republican congress post 94'! Since the 2003 Bush tax cuts, the US as well as the world has been bombing! Nice try. I mean, ni
    62 Falcon84 : Not being partisan at all. Just pointing out fact. And 9/11 can't absolve all of it. You know that. So do I.
    63 CO7772WUH : @ Falcon84 This is the issue I with people such as yourself. You people blamed GW for the economy after sep 11th, when it should have been obvious to
    64 RJdxer : We had a projected surplus. We will never have an actual surplus until two things happen that never will. First, FICA taxes are taken out of the gene
    65 Flighty : Yes but the limits are very high. The #1 valuable thing you can have is human resources. Humans who know how to bank, set up engineering firms, consu
    66 L-188 : It never existed. The "Surplus" was just a numbers game played by the White House at the time. As RJdxer points out it was only a "Projected" one tha
    67 Joni : I didn't read the whole thread, but one point that doesn't look like it's prominently featured is that this can be explained by taking into account th
    68 Flighty : This is correct, but the 2 facts are related. When Bush cut the capital gains tax to 15%, that caused the superwealthy to suddenly unfreeze a lot of
    69 OU812 : I don't necessarily agree with this. As Flighty pointed out, raising the capital gains tax or taxes in general probably would stall or slow an econom
    70 RJdxer : That would be assuming that the recession had not continued which is highly doubtful since it was the tax cuts that freed up the capital that helped
    71 ATCT : Im gonna get flamed for this but... If you are too stupid to get off your lazy butt and make yourself rich (wow, I did it, my dad's a minister), then
    72 Joni : The ending of the recession was likely largely cyclical and would have taken place, tax cuts or no. Further, the US fed rate was at 1%, which makes c
    73 RJdxer : True but how long the recession would have lasted is what is at question. I still maintain that the tax cuts, which went to every level, not just the
    74 HuskyAviation : Of course it did--but the Fed rate at 1% had a lot to do with it too. The fact is that our economy is by far the most stable in the world, compared t
    75 CALTECH : Republican congress and senate for a few of those years. Nuff said.
    76 L-188 : And it was a projected surplus, not a real one. Based on some economic assuptions of that were not sustainable.
    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    So, The Tax Cut Wasn't Meant For The Rich, Eh? posted Fri May 30 2003 04:55:49 by Alpha 1
    Bush Tax Cuts Are A Boon For The Wealthy posted Wed Apr 5 2006 15:54:07 by Falcon84
    Why Should The Rich Have A Higher Tax %? posted Tue Aug 10 2004 20:53:34 by TriJetFan1
    Warren Buffet On The 'Tax Cut' posted Tue May 20 2003 16:35:04 by Heavymetal
    Another Plan To Tax The Rich posted Wed Mar 12 2003 21:29:15 by Matt D
    Power Cut Hits The Channal Tunnal posted Fri Aug 3 2007 19:57:37 by Express1
    The Rich And Powerful Are Different posted Tue Jul 31 2007 02:39:16 by Halls120
    Bush Vs Blair On The Weakest Link posted Mon Mar 12 2007 17:41:49 by EK20
    The Rich Getting Richer... posted Fri Mar 9 2007 04:50:13 by Captaink
    I DON'T Wonder What The Rich Folks Are Doing. posted Mon Mar 5 2007 20:34:00 by TedTAce