posted on February 9, 2001 11:02:20 AM new
Thank you, Ken..That's what I wanted to express, but I do not have your eloquaciousivity (Did I say it right, Mr. Bush? )
posted on February 9, 2001 11:19:25 AM new
I too dislike paying taxes and the proposed tax cut will save me a significant amount of money, but I agree with James that the fiscally responsible plan would be to see that a top priority is paying off the debt, determining exactly how Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will be funded, revised, or eliminated, etc. In other words, I see no long term plan that is going to reduce government spending or significantly stimulate the economy. The next attempt will be to enact a tax cut for businesses. Then in a few years, the tax increases, probably mainly backdoor ones, will begin to fund programs again. And so the cycle continues. The odds that government growth will be contained by either the right or the left are as likely as a dog chasing its tail will eventually catch it.
In my opinion the only real battles that exist are over how a relatively small amount of that money may be allocated to best serve the most pressing needs in the nation and I believe that is a valuable exercise.
[ edited by Antiquary on Feb 9, 2001 11:20 AM ]
posted on February 9, 2001 11:20:42 AM new
Ok, so we're going to actually complain about how much people are getting back, in comparison with what they pay?
Ok, correct me if I"m wrong, but KRS, I'm going to assume that the figures you give are taxable income.
Both of these instances are with the person filing single and the numbers are based upon their taxable income.
First instance is that college grad that makes 24K/year and on tax return he pays out $3604.
Second instance is that dotcommer, who makes 80K/year and on his tax return he pays out $19489.
So who doesn't deserve a larger amount back? In your eyes, please explain how to make this fair. I am willing to listen. I am willing to see your side of it. I see person 2 as having paid a lot more in taxes than person 1. If anyone is going to get anything back, isn't person number 2 entitled to get more back because he contributed more? Or should he get a smaller amount back because he can afford to lose more?
posted on February 9, 2001 11:25:13 AM new
I am doing my part to fund Social Security and Medicate. 15% straight out of my pocket. No breaks, no credits, no emloyer share.
posted on February 9, 2001 11:25:50 AM new
The right will never learn that tax cuts will not work. Even Alan Greenspan said this, and the republican spin machine took his comment out of context to give the impression he was for the Bush taxcut. We have been there and done that folks. If you want a taxcut fine, but when it puts the country into a downspin like in the 1980's you better prepare yourself for a taxhike when the government needs the money, and look forward to paying more tax than you are now. Why did the democrats raise taxes in 1993? To gain the billions that was given to the rich during reaganomics.
posted on February 9, 2001 11:31:57 AM new
[i]So, the rich will benefit a lot. Married people with children will benefit a tiny bit.
So...this "tax cut" will do...what...for single people & married couples with *no* children? That's what I thought. Be still my heart.[/i]
Bunnicula...it depends on what the families are now paying.
A married couple w/children who earn $200,000 per year will get a bigger break than a married couple w/children who earn $60,000 because they pay much more into the system to begin with!
Same with the married couple w/o children. Those who pay the most will get a bigger break and they should. If our family pays $15,000 per year in taxes and another family pays $5,000, why should they get the same amount as we do? Isn't that just another entitlement program?
posted on February 9, 2001 12:16:27 PM new
I think the heart of the problem for me is that the system is broken to begin with. If you're not paid a living wage in the first place, this tax cut isn't going to do a thing for you.
Where I work, there are salaried staff members paid so little that in spite of working full time, they have to draw food stamps in order to feed their families. We have many 30-hour a week "part time" employees (a common employer dodge to avoid paying out benefits) working for peanuts and no health insurance. Are these the "hard working people of America" that George W. Bush is so fond of talking about? How exactly is giving the bulk of the surplus back to the wealthiest people in the country going to benefit them?
Under Bush's tax cut, I'd ultimately get $240 or so a year back. A return of that amount would make no difference in my life and, quite frankly, I'm offended to hear Bush continue to push this tax cut primarily as a way to help the middle class and those barely reaching the middle class.
posted on February 9, 2001 12:33:47 PM new
I do not begrudge the wealthy their wealth: after all, many (not all), cheated really well to get where they are..
What I do begrudge is the total disregard
for the working poor, who cannot invest in tax-loopholes, therefore cannot receive huge tax cut or re-investment credits, since they can barely eat...
And before anyone says "well, they should get better jobs", can you imagine a country where there are only chiefs, NO Indians?...Can you see bush's cronies dishing out Big Macs? Let the rich be rich...good luck to them, but DO NOT FIGHT against a tiny minimum wage pay increase, because, heaven forbids, it will cut down on the already excessive profit margin....
********
Gosh Shosh!
About Me
[ edited by Shoshanah on Feb 9, 2001 12:54 PM ]
posted on February 9, 2001 12:49:17 PM new
chum - Just for you. Greenspans words:
With budget surpluses seen rising over coming years, even allowing for the odd dip in growth, the issue for policymakers would be how to manage strong inflows of cash and this might require a combination of tax cuts as well as debt paydown, Greenspan said.
I agree that the way Americans pay taxes could use revision. But seem we can't seem to get the Democrats nor the Republicans to do so, what would you suggest?
posted on February 9, 2001 12:54:08 PM new
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if you're drawing foodstamps, in order to feed your family.... in all actuality, you're not paying taxes. The working poor pay no federal income taxes. Bill Clinton expanded the EIC so therefore they'll get a check from the government, even if they don't owe taxes.
Please explain to me, how someone who doesn't pay taxes, should receive any $ from a tax cut?
How exactly is giving the bulk of the surplus back to the wealthiest people in the country going to benefit them?
And my question is, who should we give it to?
It should be given back to the people who actually pay it.
(personally I'm for a flat tax all the way across the board.. I believe those who make 200K should pay the exact same percentage of taxes as those who make 20K)
posted on February 9, 2001 12:59:50 PM new
Putting aside the poor and the middle class for a moment. What rate do you think the rich should pay in income taxes and where do you think "rich" begins?
posted on February 9, 2001 01:02:34 PM newI do not begrudge the wealthy their wealth: after allo,many (not all), cheated really well to get where they are..
Shosh...do you have figures to support the "many" in your statement? Are you referring to 50%, 60%, 70% of the wealthy?
Let the rich be rich...good luck to them, but DO NOT FIGHT against a tiny minimum wage pay increase, because, heaven forbids, it will cut down on the already excessive profit margin....
What about the numerous small business owners who hire alot of the minimum wage workers? Many small business go under every year because they are already working with very small profit margins. Between taxes and government regulations they can barely keep up. You want to generalize that successful people are all greedy and do nothing but take advantage of their employees. I work closely with our local Chamber of Commerce and that is rarely the case.
can you imagine a country where there are only chiefs, NO Indians?
Being an Indian doesn't mean having to slave away at minimum wage your whole life. If a person has even a tiny bit of ambition, they can improve their lives tremendously.
********
Does someone have a link to the tax code? I would bet that someone on a part-time minimum wage status would be paying almost nothing in taxes to begin with?
posted on February 9, 2001 01:04:48 PM newneelieohara NO! I thank YOU for your post. No one seems to speak much about that situation.
As to "across the board taxation"...Say it is 10%, for the sake of arguement. A family making 15,000 a year would pay 1,500, leaving only 13,500 usable income...
Now, a family making 900,000 would pay 90,000 in tax, leaving only 810,000 usable income...Poor little rich family!
********
Gosh Shosh!
posted on February 9, 2001 01:05:13 PM new
<i>Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if you're drawing foodstamps, in order to feed your family.... in all actuality, you're not paying taxes. The working poor pay no federal income taxes. Bill Clinton expanded the EIC so therefore they'll get a check from the government, even if they don't owe taxes.
Please explain to me, how someone who doesn't pay taxes, should receive any $ from a tax cut?</i>.
roseiebud: I'm afraid you're taking me a bit too literally. I never said they paid taxes, or that they should receive a tax cut. My remarks were meant to explain the animosity some of us feel towards a president who would promote a huge tax cut, benefitting mostly rich citizens, as a measure taken to help out the average working class American. Of course a tax cut wouldn't benefit low income families surviving on food stamps. That's exactly my point.
And my question is, who should we give it to?
Use it to pay down the national debt. Use it to shore up programs that actually will help the people Bush insists he's trying to help. Use part of it for a smaller tax cut.
I wouldn't like it, but I'd give Bush more points for honesty if he'd just abandon the charade that it's actually going to help out those struggling to enter the middle class, because that's balderdash.
(I'd love to stick around and continue this discussion, but I'm out of here in a half an hour and won't be back at my computer until Monday morning!)
posted on February 9, 2001 01:15:43 PM new
Shoshanah~ So you think it's entirely fair that they pay 90K+39.6% of their income? (of course that 90K is dependent on their filing status).
IMO, it seems more as though you're jealous and you don't think it's fair that they make more. And if they do make more, they should be penalized for it.
I think that's the hard part of anything. It's easy to nit-pic things apart, but it's damn hard to find something that works that everyone will agree on. So, in the interest of finding a solution that everyone here could agree on......... what are your ideas?
posted on February 9, 2001 01:22:23 PM new
I hate to bring up some personal things, but the Republican party has rarely come up with anything which would benefit the "little people".
Case in point: I am from California. When Reagan was governor, he tried to ABOLISH SSDI payments to the permanemntly disable, saying they need to be "retrained"...How do "retrain" someone who was un-trainable to begin with? He closed down the major Mental Institutions, throwing the mentally ill in the streets, literally, ergo the birth of half-way houses; he DENIED extra SSDI payments to those who were ill and needed a little extra help, because their PAID-FOR Disability Income was not enough to survive on. I was one of those, with invasive cancer, and an 800.00 per month Disability Income...not enough to pay for my Chemo. I applied for SSDI, to help with my treatment..and was denied, because of the jolly good Reagan new laws, which had remained in place...I appealed, was denied again, and was told: "We have determined that although uncomfortable, your form of cancer is not life-threatening, and we recommand you return to work as soon as possible"...I only had all-over body invasive cancer (which came back 4 years later)...THAT is what is to be expected from this type of Government...Compassionate Republican? Not until HELL freezes over!
There are some things one cannot close one's eyes to...
******** Gosh Shosh!
posted on February 9, 2001 01:22:36 PM new
neelieohara ~ so I don't forget to say this at the end of my post........ Have a good weekend!
Use it to shore up programs that actually will help the people Bush insists he's trying to help.
Not sure what you mean by "shore up programs that actually will help.." Please be more specific about the type of programs you're referring to.
Use part of it for a smaller tax cut.
But the complaint is .. that the tax cut you're going to be receiving is not large enough. So this is kinda a contradiction.
[ edited by rosiebud on Feb 9, 2001 01:24 PM ]
posted on February 9, 2001 01:23:31 PM new
On the one hand it's very easy to say "you're jealous" and there is more than an element of truth, but on the other hand many people view this type of thing as welfare for the rich under a different name. Many rich people seem to have problems with welfare for the poor, so the poor don't often think highly of governement efforts to enrich the already wealthy. Like it or not, perception is the better part of reality and Bush is seriously alienating many of the "hardwroking middle class Americans" that he claims to know and love so well.
posted on February 9, 2001 01:26:09 PM new
Rosie, I don't think her complaint is that the tax cut is not large enough so it should be larger. I think the complaint is the tax cut is worthless for many people who will benefit by a whole $5 more a week, and since Bush is masquerading this tax cut as a help to those very people (the working class) it is insulting.
posted on February 9, 2001 01:29:44 PM new
Shosh...God forbid that a family who may have worked hard for years, maybe gone without so a husband or wife could go back to school to get a degree, maybe invested everything they had into a business that finally makes some money...Get to reap the benefits!
Maybe this family making $900,000 owns a company that employs hundreds of people and allows them to have decent salaries and medical & retirement benefits.
Not every wealthy person is greedy. Some are lucky and some are smart and some just worked their butts off. Either way, they should not be punished because of their success.
posted on February 9, 2001 01:33:20 PM new
You are absolutely right, James...
Yes, there is an element of envy..or may it is just resentment because, as you say, the rich has such total disregard for the working class....
I cringe when I see a pair of shoes selling for $175.00, knowing bloody well that the worker in Brazil or on China or in Malaysia, was paid may-be 50 cents to produce it. And if all the children are put to work, sniffing all that glue, and everyone in the family pools those 50 cents, then MAYBE the family can EAT that day....I am not a professional "bleeder", nor do I have a "saviour" complex...I just strip everything of it's glitter and do not wear rose-tinted glasses...
******** Gosh Shosh!
posted on February 9, 2001 01:36:18 PM new
Okay, let's see if I can do this in two minutes. (Rosie, you have a good weekend, too!)
Programs---well, I'd have to cede to people who know more about the issue than I do, but Social Security and Medicaid would be a start.
My remark about a smaller tax cut isn't really a contradiction---Bush's Big One isn't going to help those of us below a certain income level anyway, so hack away at will! Or make it smaller and more middle class/lower middle class specific. The problem is its size---if we have to throw way that much money, running the risk another Reagan scale disaster just to give trillions back to the obscenely rich, then the government is quite welcome to keep my $240, thank you very much! If we get it, I'd suggest that we all turn around and donate it to charities that actually benefit the poor and the working poor. In bulk, at least, it might make a difference.
Shoshanah---you have my complete sympathy. My former roommate and dear, dear friend struggled through cancer on Disability income. I could rant for hours about his experience, but I'm LATE!
I look at those stats and I see an average of 14-17% savings. There are a few exceptions to that, such as single or no children.
Anyone here, who is complaining about the amount of the $ that they could be getting back, has every opportunity to change their income level. My dad told me that if I wanted to go to college, I was going to have to work and go at the same time. I worked full time, raised a family and went to school full time. Because of that, I raised myself to the next level. It wasn't easy, but I did it. Why can't Joe Schmoe, who lives on the next block over, do the same thing.. rather than sit and complain about the rich paying the same % of taxes or getting the same % back?
)
