Gore won't run in 2004

[Thrawn]

From Kerry's official website.

"Washington, DC – Senator John Kerry responded to today's report in the Washington Post that the Bush Administration is planning new proposals that would "shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers". (Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post, A3,12/6/02) Senator Kerry said, "I am stunned that at a time when low income working Americans are struggling to make ends meet, the Bush Administration is actually working to raise taxes on those who can least afford it. It is hard to believe that this Administration is so out of touch that they are considering increasing the tax burden on struggling workers while lobbying to secure huge, new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, claiming that the working poor don't pay enough in taxes. This is an insult to working Americans everywhere and flies in the face of American values of fundamental fairness. "

http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=188841

[Thrawn]

Doesn't look like a "Secret" plan at all.

"New Tax Plan May Bring Shift In Burden
Poor Could Pay A Bigger Share

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 16, 2002; Page A03

As the Bush administration draws up plans to simplify the tax system, it is also refining arguments for why it may be necessary to shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers.

Economists at the Treasury Department are drafting new ways to calculate the distribution of tax burdens among different income classes, which are expected to highlight what administration officials see as a rising tax burden on the rich and a declining burden on the poor. The White House Council of Economic Advisers is also preparing a report detailing the concentration of the tax burden on the affluent and highlighting problems with the way tax burdens are calculated for the poor."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59577-2002Dec15.html

[Kieran]

Thrawn-

The tax issue is rank-and-file party line. What I am more concerned about is the Oliver Stone-esque "Secret Plan" comment.

No, it isn't a shock to me that a Democrat would complain about those mean ol' Republicans that favor flat tax structures.

[Toad]

Total Income Tax Share (percentage of federal income tax collections paid by each group)
 

1999

 Total          100%
 Top 1%    (> $ 293,415 AGI)     36.18%
 Top 5%    (> $ 120,846 )          55.45%
 Top 10%  (> $ 87,682 )            66.45%
 Top 25%  (> $ 52,965 )            83.54%
 Top 50%  (>$ 26,415 )             96%
Source: IRS

 
Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 1999 & 1989

[whgates3]

from '89 to '99 the average tax rate is up 13% as is the total number of taxpayers (total increase of nearly 27%)
peace dividend my prettythang...do go crying for the top 1% - their fraction of the nation's income increased 37% '89 -'99, while the 2nd quatile's share droped 2.5%

[Kieran]

Regardless of the income, explain to me the fundamental fairness of charging more because of higher income.

Bear in mind, I am nothing more than a school teacher, hardly in the upper tax brackets. Still, I have to admit taking more from the rich just because they make more is inherently... socialistic.

[Ike 2K#]

Originally posted by Toad
Gore won't run in 2004

Now 2004 just got interesting to me.

Let's see who can get him/herself nominated.

Will it be from the Pelosi side of the fence?

Or will reality set in?

This could be much better than last time.

yup, 04 will be better for the democrats because Bush's economic team didnt dooo anyting. Vvvote GORE for the democrat party.

[guttboy]

You guys are fooling yourselves.....

Gore will run in 2004.  Its just like when he called Bush and conceded the election only to call back and say "NOT".  That man just wont go away.....

I wish he would but oh well......

[Toad]

Originally posted by whgates3
peace dividend my prettythang...

[/b]

'89-'92 Who had the White House?

'93-'00 Who had the White House?

89-95 Who had the House of Representatives?

95-99 Who had the House of Representatives?

89-95 Who had the Senate?

95-99 Who had the Senate?

This tax/spending thing isn't a Democrat or Republican thing.. it's a politician thing.

do go crying for the top 1% - their fraction of the nation's income increased 37% '89 -'99, while the 2nd quatile's share droped 2.5% [/B]

So, you're against people making money if they're good at it? They should be punished?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Kieran
Regardless of the income, explain to me the fundamental fairness of charging more because of higher income.

Bear in mind, I am nothing more than a school teacher, hardly in the upper tax brackets. Still, I have to admit taking more from the rich just because they make more is inherently... socialistic.

A flat tax essentially favors the rich and hurts the poor. (I am in favor of a flat tax system BTW)

10% of $20,000 is much more of a hardship to that person earning 20k than 10% of $1,000,000.

[Karnak]

Kieran,

To make my position clear, I'd vote for a Republican that I agreed with, or seemed likely to do better for the country.  I'm not locked into the Democratic candidate.

My priorities simply make it that much more likely that I'll vote Democrat, but it is hardly inconceivable that I would vote Republican.

[Toad]

Originally posted by midnight Target
A flat tax essentially favors the rich and hurts the poor. (I am in favor of a flat tax system BTW)

10% of $20,000 is much more of a hardship to that person earning 20k than 10% of $1,000,000.

"Favors"?

Indeed, in your example it's $2000 versus $100,000. Considering the tax system we have now, the millionaire would save a considerable sum of money under a flat tax.

However, how is this being "favored"? Aren't both citizens being treated as equals by the tax code under a flat tax?

Would seem that the flat tax offers the much desired but elusive "equality" that is so sought after in our society.

And a flat tax and be tweaked to shelter the lower income groups too.

To me, it's merely a fairness issue. In fact, I would be willing to pay more than I do now under a flat tax that was set up to shelter the lower income levels from any tax IF:

1. It was applied to all folks above a certain "low income exempt" level equally.

2. There were no loopholes or tax dodges.

3. There was greatly simplified calculations. Basically 5 minutes of figuring with a pocket calculator for any salaried or hourly worker.

[john9001]

most "flat tax' ideas have a cut off around 25-30k with no tax under that number

[whgates3]

Originally posted by Toad


'89-'92 Who had the White House?

'93-'00 Who had the White House?

89-95 Who had the House of Representatives?

95-99 Who had the House of Representatives?

89-95 Who had the Senate?

95-99 Who had the Senate?

This tax/spending thing isn't a Democrat or Republican thing.. it's a politician thing.

that was what i was pointing out.
our government will continue to take as much $ as it can w/out revolt, stifling real wealth & Q of L increase for us.  
this is the thing conservatives are supposed to be against.
as much as real GDP has increased over the years, shouldn't we all be able to survive on shorter work weeks by now? if the average dude could get by on 40 hrs/week in 1980, then that same guy should be able to get by on 20 hrs/week presently or work 40 hrs/week & live high on the horse, but that is not the case - still 40 hrs/week to scrape by, with little more to show for it except a slightly longer life expectancy working 40 hrs/week

So, you're against people making money if they're good at it? They should be punished?

most of the people who make lots of (get lots of) money dont create wealth.  as anyone who has read adam smith knows, all wealth is created by labour.  CEOs manipulating the stock market to increase the value of their options does not create wealth, it just transfers it....flat taxes would unemploy nearly 1,000,000 accountants - they have a lobby & lots of $ to bribe with - probably would never happen & even if it did, it would have to be more like 30% than 10 & its not really flat, as one group pays a hell of a lot more than others  
personally, i'd like to see a real flat tax - everone pays an even share - for todays gov't about $20,000 per worker - you'd see plently of gov't spending cut real fast, or a lot of incumbents out (& real conservatives in) nearly as fast...of course everyone making less than $30,000/year would probably quit their job...

[Ike 2K#]

Originally posted by Kieran
Who knows, I might vote Democrat this time.

you better vote the democrats in 04 or else (lol)