posted on February 8, 2001 07:59:13 PM new
Well, the prez has signed, winked, and sent his trillion$ tax cut for approval...Based on that, those of you, married folks with children, making 50,000 per year are gonna get...YES...Whoopee! $120.00 tax cut the first year, and up to $500 cut in 10 years... Now, those fortunate enough to make $900,000 per year will start with a lowly 1,800 (that sounds wrong: too low, if I recall) the first year and end up with a $48,000 tax cut in 10 years...
So, what great plans do you all have for your 120.00 pittance Buy something on EbAy?
Of course, nothing was said about or offered to those of much lesser income!
Or to the single woman/man, raising the children because wife/husband might have passed away, or husband walked out...
posted on February 8, 2001 08:42:03 PM new
With my Tax Refund I'll finally be able to afford that pack of chewing gum. Of course it may be the best lunch I'll get that week...
Barry (if I get the fruit flavored gum maybe I can call it health food) Barris
posted on February 8, 2001 09:13:55 PM new
Maybe those of us who are married and have no children will get a tax break some day. Instead of having to subsidize all of the people who are trying to over populate the world by having children. It would also be nice if we weren't penilized for getting married (marriage being something both major parties point to as "a family value", something to be encourged).
I do belive in the premiss that those paying the most taxes should get the biggest tax break (and/or the biggest tax rebate). The argument then, is who is paying the most taxes.
posted on February 9, 2001 02:32:55 AM new
This was awfully generous of him. Well now lets see 120.00 in one year,for married couples, that's awfully good, maybe they can use it to play the lottery!
posted on February 9, 2001 04:28:15 AM new
Greg - The good news for you would be that in this proposed tax plan, the so called 'marriage tax' would be eliminated.
Here's the URL so anyone interested can read how this plan would cut taxes/tax rates for almost everyone.
posted on February 9, 2001 05:52:39 AM new
If you are rich enough, like Marc Rich, you can renounce your citizenship, move to Switzerland, evade paying over $48 million in taxes, payoff the Clintons with a couple of million and get a full Presidential pardon.
posted on February 9, 2001 07:18:07 AM new
8.09 a.m. ET (1325 GMT) February 9, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) — Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Friday that Democratic leaders who criticize President Bush's proposed tax cuts because most of the money would go to higher-income people do not understand how the economy works.
"The idea that higher-income people are going to buy another car (with their tax cut) is just lunacy,'' O'Neill said on ABC's "Good Morning America.''
He was reacting to Democratic congressional leaders' argument that Bush's plan would give a person with a $1 million income a $46,000 tax cut, more than enough to buy a new luxury car, while a typical wage-earner would get about $227 — just enough, the Democrats say, to buy a muffler for a used car.
"The idea that somehow people are going to buy a Lexus if they have a substantial reflow of money they sent in (as taxes) just seems to me to indicate a lack of understanding of how they economy works,'' O'Neill.
posted on February 9, 2001 07:30:51 AM new
O'Neill could say that, but a savings of $47,000 is $47,000. The car illustration was just to put things into perspective.
As for his assertion that "People who have substantial amounts of money are going to take any tax break they get and reinvest in America's economy", this is just a reversal of the trickle down economics bs.
They used to say that tax savings for the rich would cause these people to spend money in such a way that new jobs would be created, for example, a man buys a yacht he now needs crew, so the rich man's luxury creates new jobs. Of course, no such thing happens. I'm glad that O'Neill now admits that trickle down economics really is "voodoo economics" to quote Daddy Bush.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Feb 9, 2001 07:31 AM ]
posted on February 9, 2001 07:39:40 AM new
Yeah they are trying to shove that reaganomics down our throats again. I dont think dumbya's proposed cuts will go through. Of course faux news would say that about democrats since their station is pure conservative. Bush will be out in 4 years anyway lol.
posted on February 9, 2001 07:44:45 AM new
What kills me with the car/muffler example, is no one ever bother to mention what each group could buy with the taxes they pay in the first places. Show me how much each group pays in taxes and we can decide who should get what tax cut.
posted on February 9, 2001 07:45:11 AM new
Morning James - I've always respected your posts, while admitting that we don't always agree. And that's okay.
I'd like to ask you your opinion on how we could best handle the huge surplus that we now have.
Should we just divide them equally it amongst all tax payers, no matter how much they paid in taxes? I'm needing to better understand how the democrats don't think that the percentages of taxes paid, should be returned in the same percentages to the people that paid them.
There always seems to be this theory that while I may have paid thousands more in taxes than you (using just for an example) that you feel (?) you deserve to get the same amount back? Kind of like 'take from the wealthy - give to the poor'.
Also, as far as the trickle down theory, I do believe it does work sometimes in that way. Look at Gates. How much do you think he's paid in taxes? How much has this genius contributed to stimulating our economy? Expecially in Silicon Valley for example.
posted on February 9, 2001 07:50:43 AM new
Greg - To clarify please. You said, "Show me how much each group pays in taxes and we can decide who should get what tax cut."
The percentages paid now, by people with different incomes, and those proposed, are listed in that URL I posted above.
posted on February 9, 2001 08:03:33 AM new
Morning, Linda.
I think we should spend the surplus on paying down the national debt, not giving out gifts.
Of course in the event that a tax cut is passed, I don't think that it's fair to just divide it equally. The Robin Hood story is kind of fun, but not fair. However, the fact is taxes don't hurt the rich like they do the poor. That's really just a dose of reality, I know, but a tax cut is not advantageous to anyone but the rich. Most people who are not rich see special legislation passed to the advantage of the rich as pretty similar to welfare, only for those who don't need it and it's pretty frustrating that the powers that be seem more concerned with helping those who don't need the help then those who do.
As for Bill Gates - of course there are individuals who sneeze and the economy is affected, but for the plastic surgeon making $1 million a year (no objection to that), his luxurious advantages do not stimulate any economy but his own.
But all of that is not really that relevant. I really think the national debt needs to be paid and there is a window open now like never before and maybe never again.
posted on February 9, 2001 08:16:13 AM new
Thanks James - On the paying the debt off....I agreed totally with that before Alan Greenspan and the Feds said (very recently) there was enough of a surplus to do both. It is my belief that if anyone understands our economy, it's Greenspan.
See, I believe that since there is a huge surplus, we'd better get it back (tax cuts and new tax brackets) now before Congress comes up with new programs where the funding could be used. I believe that if people are allowed to keep the money they earn, through their hard work/abilities etc. (like your example of the doctor), then they should spend it however they like. Why just because someone has the brains and money to get educated and make a million dollars should he be punished becauses others didn't?
Once the government takes our money away (through taxation) we have little control on how it is spent.
I'd like to keep ours in our pocket.
On the taxes not hurting the rich like they do the poor, I agree. I'd prefer a flat tax rate but think we have to compromise with each administration and their beliefs. I do, however think this (Bush's) plan does address the poor paying a smaller percent than they currently are.
Thanks again. Appreciate reading your views, truly.
Edited because I do try to catch my (many) spelling mistakes.
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 9, 2001 08:23 AM ]
posted on February 9, 2001 08:18:57 AM new
My neighbor really does have a Lexus (hers)...and a new Corvette(his)...and a restored '55 Chevy convertible(hers)...and a big van(theirs)...and a pick-up truck(his).
Not that they need it, but because I am very fond of them, I would be more than happy to use my refund for a new muffler for any vehicle in their fleet.
posted on February 9, 2001 08:36:01 AM new
Well femme - (saying jokingly here) what's the matter with you? Not keeping up with the Jones's (your neighbors)? How can they afford a garage full of nice cars, and you have only the bumper?
Saying hi to rosiebud too. Put your two cents in. This is an issue that will/does affect us all....democrat, republican, and all the rest. (YAY Nader hehe)
posted on February 9, 2001 08:42:38 AM newhis luxurious advantages do not stimulate any economy but his own.
James...when someone has more money in their net paycheck, they will usually do one of two things...invest it or spend it. Most people don't bury it in the backyard anymore. Either way, that money will end up back into the economy. If your Plastic Surgeon decides to buy a new car, then the auto industry benefits, as well as the dealerships, mechanics, etc and all the way down the line. If he takes a vacation, it benefits the travel industry and service people at the hotels & restaurants. The economy is generated by the money that people spend on a daily basis, not by what the government hands out to others.
Linda is correct in that if given the chance, the government will be happy to find new ways to spend YOUR money. No problem on that end! And you have to remember that the money is not going BACK to the taxpayers. It's not going to be taken from them to begin with.
Whatever amount we are able to keep, we will be happy to put back into the economy. I've got some major home improvements underway and someone has to pay the contractors so they can pay their suppliers and workers.
posted on February 9, 2001 08:53:54 AM new
Hi Linda
jamesoblivion ~ I've got a question for you. I don't know how kosher to pull up things from another thread, if it's not, forgive me, I'm just trying to understand.. ok? In the Aids thread, you stated:
"There is no reason at all why the wealthiest nation in the history of man should not also be the most charitable nation in the history of man"
But yet, when it comes to tax cuts:
"I think we should spend the surplus on paying down the national debt, not giving out gifts"
Please explain to me, the difference.
edited to add.. YIKES posted before I was done!
Even if the democrats are correct and the poor do not get a large tax cut... wouldn't it be better to give their money back to them.. as it is they did earn it and they have need for it. Isn't that the definition of charity? (ok, not websters definition, but the general idea behind it.. lol)
posted on February 9, 2001 09:07:02 AM new
Rosie, it sure is. I hope that anyting I say in any thread somehow doesn't contradict each other.
A tax cut of this magnitude, that would return a few hundred dollars a year to those in the lowest bracket amounts to a few single digit dollars a week. I wouldn't think an extra $5 a week really takes any taxpayer to a higher level.
I don't see the parallel between this and humanitarian aid, sorry.
Everyone is raising some good points, and if not for the national debt (I'll have to find out if what Greenspan says is true) I'd definitely have to rethink it.
posted on February 9, 2001 09:35:31 AM new
jamesoblivion ~ well, in my viewpoint, charity should start at home and we seem reluctant to give back to those who are already giving, and quite possibly could need the money back. Hey, $5 buys a lot of ramin or rice when you're hungry.
Let me change some of your wording on your statement.. if I may..
{original}
A tax cut of this magnitude, that would return a few hundred dollars a year to those in the lowest bracket amounts to a few single digit dollars a week. I wouldn't think an extra $5 a week really takes any taxpayer to a higher level.
{revised}
A tax increase of this magnitude, that would take a few hundred dollars a year from those in the lowest bracket amounts to a few single digit dollars a week. I wouldn't think an extra $5 a week really makes a difference to any taxpayer in that level.
IOW, if it were an increase and we were taking that much from those in the lower tax brackets.. there'd be all sorts of screaming happening about how wrong it is. But when it's a tax cut, suddenly the amount is a mear pitance.
Unfortunately, with this entire thing.. we have the spin doctors .. on both sides telling all sorts of tales.. in the hopes of making themselves look good and the other guys look bad. That, perhaps, is the saddest part of all.
Personally, I would trust Greenspan, over what the Democrats and Republican say. Greenspan has said that this tax cut would work ok, IF there were a trigger. So that way, if the surplus falls short of what is projected, the tax cut would freeze where it's currently at.
edited cause I remembered the word I was looking for..
[ edited by rosiebud on Feb 9, 2001 09:37 AM ]
posted on February 9, 2001 10:29:20 AM newLinda_K, sorry I wasn't clear enough. I was trying to get across the point that the spin doctors were using examples like the car and muffler for the tax cut, but they were not giving any examples of how much each group paid in the first place (i.e., how may cars did they pay in taxes verses how many mufflers did they pay in taxes).
The point had been made, that any refund should be based on what was paid. NO fixed amount for everyone, and I agree with this.
posted on February 9, 2001 10:31:01 AM new
The Car vs Muffler was a humorous analogy, which I enjoyed tremendously... Unfortunatley, 120.00 won't even cover a muffler
The entire proposal is a JOKE! Even some of his OWN men are criticizing bush for that tax cut, because it ASSUMES that, in 10 years, there will be about 5 trillion surplus if: we don't have a war; if we don't have a recession; if the economy redresses itself...if, if, if ad nauseum! Only a FOOL or a self-named prophet with an overly inflated ego, can make that kind of prediction...
Yes, let's pay on our National Debt! With that under control, then, and only then, can we start thinking about tax cuts...I do not like taxes anymore than anyone...But this plan is suicidal: it is like charging all of one's credit cards to the max, after having just been handed one's "pink slip"...
Let's see: one gets 120.00 (approximately)...will people SAVE 120.00? of course not...they will order a few giant pizzas, go to the movies, maybe buy the kids a pair of shoes...then, in less than an hour, Poof...it will be all gone! That will have helped the economy for a whole 60 minutes...Wow!....
posted on February 9, 2001 10:40:53 AM new
"about Bush's phony $1600 tax rebate. Did you hear the Clintonesque language?
"...the average taxpayer..... a family of four with two children..."
Hell, the expanded per-child tax credit represents $1000 of that $1600 rebate! Where's the real tax cut? What about those of us who only have one child, or those hard-working Americans who don't have a kid yet?
(Gee, didn't he pound on Gore for having all kinds of qualifiers for his tax cut???)
The Citizens for Tax Justice ran a computer analysis of taxpayer's and Bush's plan, and found that 88% of taxpayers would not get the $1600 tax cut. election cycle. Want to see real numbers for real Americans?
Single wage earner, just out of college, trying to make it on $24,000 a year? $25 a month. Don't spend it all in one place.
Newly married couple, no kids yet, combined income of $40,000. $8 a month. Talk about a marriage penalty!!!!!
Single mom raising one kid, luck enough to pull down $35,000. $70 a month. Whoopee.
Now, let's try some other scenarios.
Single dot-com employee, pulling down $80,000. $2,031 tax cut. Rock climbing vacation in Brice, UT, dude!
Married professional couple, one kid, pulling down $150,000. $4,395 tax cut. Who the heck needs vouchers anymore?
Divorced CEO, gets to claim one of the two kids, $300,000. $10,768 tax cut. Not quite enough for a new Lexus, but he certainly can upgrade his Lexus to a Jaguar to pick up a new trophy wife.
For a married family of four to get the $1600 level, they have to have a combined income of $60,000. That either means one nice job, or two parents slaving away. Is that what George W. Bush wants for our country?
As Bush keeps searching for something to wrap his hands around to claim some kind of legitimacy, he is forced to resort to more lies, more bait-and-switch, more unethical and unpatriotic avenues to secure his weak position. And he hasn't even started to make his payoffs to the religious reich, the oil industry, the mjissile defense nuts, and the other special interests that plan to pillage this country's national resources to line their pockets. When that happens, the real fun begins".
