Author Topic: Bush's tax cuts may hurt world economy (Read 1156 times)

Toad · « **Reply #30 on:** February 24, 2003, 08:41:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
got a cite on both sides being in favor of tax cut ?

and not rush.com

You're kidding right? You really missed this? You think it's only the Republicans?

Rush.com? Will you take the Washington Post?

Senior Hill Democrat Offers Tax-Cut Plan

Quote

The senior Democrat on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee yesterday unveiled a $160 billion package of tax cuts and emergency aid for the states, signaling that key Democrats are ready to strike an early deal with the White House on legislation to stimulate the sluggish economy...

..Senate and House Democratic leaders are readying plans of their own for early January as both parties rush to do something about an economy that is technically recovering from last year's recession but has failed to generate new jobs.

No? CBS then? Not exactly a conservative bastion, I'd say. Certainly not Rush.com

Bush Lays Out His Stimulus Plan

Quote

On Monday, the Democrats offered a rival plan that would expand unemployment benefits by 26 weeks and give all workers a refundable income tax rebate of up to $300 per person or $600 per working couple. States would get $31 billion for homeland security, highway, Medicaid and unemployment insurance programs.

Still to Rush.com for ya? How about the Democratic National Committee website? Surely they're not too Rush.com are they?

Democrats Offer Plan to Boost Economy

Quote

...The Democratic plan includes tax relief for working families and businesses, investments to help states facing massive budget crises, an extension of unemployment benefits to help workers who lost their jobs in the recession, and more.

The Democratic plan encourages stimulus by putting money in the hands of American consumers with an immediate $300 tax rebate. The plan also provides tax relief to small businesses that invest in equipment and jobs, providing an additional boost the economy....

..The vast majority of the Democratic plan -- $100 billion of the $136 billion total cost -- would go into immediate effect to boost the economy...

Like I said upthread, both sides feel a need to "do something" about the economy but neither side really has a clue just what to do. So, they're doing something to be doing something. IMO.

Hangtime · « **Reply #31 on:** February 24, 2003, 08:54:13 PM »

Yup.. but being an oppressed poor dumbshit rather than an oppressed rich one, I prefer the one that gives me a tax cut and the rich bastards the shaft.

Gawd, I love America.

Toad · « **Reply #32 on:** February 24, 2003, 09:05:09 PM »

Please define "rich" using adjusted gross income as the determiant.

Hangtime · « **Reply #33 on:** February 24, 2003, 09:09:01 PM »

Damn, Toad, why in hell do you always have to ask the freakin HARD questions?

Net or Gross?

Hangtime · « **Reply #34 on:** February 24, 2003, 09:10:12 PM »

oh, hell.. would help if I could read.

Ok, 250k gross is freakin rich in my book.

Toad · « **Reply #35 on:** February 24, 2003, 09:18:48 PM »

So everybody > $250K agi deserves the "tax shaft"?

What percentage of their agi should they have to "give" to the government then? What's a good "shafting" for them? Percentage-wise, I mean.

Hangtime · « **Reply #36 on:** February 24, 2003, 09:31:08 PM »

There yah go with the hard questions again.

The damn tax code is so heaped with insane loopholes the folks down on the bottom of the income scale seem to wind up with the biggest tax burden when expressed in real dollars actually paid to the government.

At least, so it seems.

I'm so sick of the republicrats playing tennis with my tax burden, I'm about ready to revolt.

I'm all for completely scrapping the current tax code and replacing it with a flat zero exemption percentage that we all, regardless of income actually pay the government.

I wonder if there's any meaningful (pardon while I hiccup and fart while typing that word) study on what such a tax program would do for the government in tax dollars in comparison to what it gets now after it pays for the IRS beauracracy?

Toad · « **Reply #37 on:** February 24, 2003, 09:45:37 PM »

Sure, sure.

But you didn't answer the question.

How much is enough for those rich bastiges to pay? As a percentage of AGI?

Hangtime · « **Reply #38 on:** February 24, 2003, 09:58:17 PM »

Well, after I got done with deductions, (and I was creative) I coughed up 22% of my income for good old unca sam.

I'd like those rich fellers to actually pay the government the same percentage. After deductions.

Toad · « **Reply #39 on:** February 24, 2003, 10:58:42 PM »

The Tax Fairy has granted your wish!

Income Quintiles/Household Income Distribution 2000

Returns, AGI Shares, and Income Tax by Percentile

Scroll down to the Adjusted Gross Income Floor On Percentiles and you'll see that the top 5% of all filers in 2000 have an AGI between $128,336 and $313,468. Your "rich bastiges" mark of $250K drops nicely into about the middle of this top 5%.

Now, keep scrolling down to Average Tax Rate and check the top 5% quintile for 2000. Note that these fine folks pay 24.42% of their income to the taxman.

Your wish has been granted.

And those obscenely "rich bastiges" with an AIG of $313,469 and higher, commonly referred to as the "top 1%" of all filers in 2000 pay 27.45% of their income to the taxman.

So, they're all paying more than you.

Equally interesting and noteworthy is the fact that in 2000 the "top 5%" of all filers made 35.30% of all income reported but they PAID 56.47% of ALL TAXES COLLECTED.

The top 1% earned 20.81% of all income reported but they PAID 37.42% of all taxes collected.

Now then.......

StSanta · « **Reply #40 on:** February 25, 2003, 06:55:53 AM »

Toad, those earning more money should also pay more money in taxes. it's reasonable IMHO.

What I dislike (especially here) is the progressive tax rate. My sis who now works as a doc gets 15% after taxes of her overwork hours. And she cannot take it out in spare time due to seveeere lack of doctors. She cannot go to the private sector until she has her specialty.

I say one should have a flat tax for everyone. If one has, like here, a socially progressive society, one could give the economically disadvantaged (read: poor) incentives to reeducate themselves and so forth.

But if there's a flat tax of say 30% (that'd be very low in DK, but probably not in the US) then it is very apparent that those earning more also pay more.

Are you suggesting that eeveryone should pay somefixed amount? I.e for a poor dude, maybe 80% of his income goes to taxes, whereas the same amount is 0.5% for a wealthier person?

Hope that ain't what you're saying.

Toad · « **Reply #41 on:** February 25, 2003, 07:39:36 AM »

No, I'm not saying that. I'm just pointing out a few things to Hang, like the system already IS the way he says he wants it to be.

Personally I think a flat tax coupled to a National Sales Tax (with items like food and prescription drugs exempted) would be a good thing to try.

Our progressive system sucks too. Just not as badly as yours.

lazs2 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 25, 2003, 08:38:08 AM »

Ol vader never met a tax he didn't like. No liberal has..I don't see how we can tax ourselves into prosperity. Flat tax with sales tax is fine for me. Never got a job from a poor person anyhow.

Other countries don't have to do bussiness with us.. It's up to them.. They don't get a vote tho.
lazs

Rude · « **Reply #43 on:** February 25, 2003, 11:01:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
hehe or the whole idea of huge tax cut in the face of a war and plummeting economy is insane. stimulate the economy with tax cuts to the rich shure it will work. just like in reagans era. such total bullcrap.

Plummeting economy...by your definition?

FOR RELEASE: 12:30 P.M. ET, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2003

U.S. COMPOSITE INDEXES FOR JANUARY 2003

The Press Release in a PDF file

This release reflects revisions to vendor performance that were not included in our 10 AM release. These revisions were minor and affected the U.S. Leading Index only. The index level in January remains the same, but the index level for December is higher than earlier reported. As a result, the January monthly change is now -0.1 percent.

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

The Conference Board announced today that the U.S. leading index decreased 0.1 percent, the coincident index increased by 0.2 percent, and the lagging index decreased 0.1 percent in January.

A sharp drop in claims for unemployment insurance offset the weak expectations of consumers in January. The leading index remains well above its peak prior to the 2001 recession and just below the previous high achieved in May 2002.
The coincident index turned up again in January after pausing in the last quarter of 2002. This month's increase in the coincident index, the largest in six months, is consistent with the gains in the leading index late last year and reflects better current conditions in the beginning of this year.
Barring any shock or prolonged uncertainty in the Middle East, the leading and coincident indexes point to a more robust pace of economic activity in the coming months.
LEADING INDICATORS. Four of the ten indicators that make up the leading index increased in January. The positive contributors to the index - beginning with the largest positive contributor - were average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance (inverted), real money supply*, manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods and materials*, and interest rate spread. The negative contributors - from the largest negative contributor - were index of consumer expectations, building permits, average weekly manufacturing hours, manufacturers' new orders for nondefense capital goods*, and stock prices. Vendor performance holds steady in January. The leading index now stands at 111.2 (1996=100). Based on revised data, this index increased 0.2 percent in December and increased 0.5 percent in November. During the six-month span through January, the leading index increased 0.2 percent, with four of the ten components advancing (diffusion index, six-month span equals 40 percent).

COINCIDENT INDICATORS. All four indicators that make up the coincident index increased in January. The positive contributors to the index, beginning with the largest positive contributor - were industrial production, employees on nonagricultural payrolls, personal income less transfer payments*, and manufacturing and trade sales*. The coincident index now stands at 115.5 (1996=100). Based on revised data, this index held steady in December and increased 0.1 percent in November. During the six-month period through January, the coincident index increased 0.2 percent.

The next release is scheduled for March 20, 2003 at 10 A.M. ET.

LAGGING INDICATORS. The lagging index decreased 0.1 percent to 99.2 (1996=100) in January, with two of the seven components declining. The negative contributors to the index - beginning with the larger negative contributor - were commercial and industrial loans outstanding* and ratio of consumer installment credit to personal income*. Change in CPI for services* is the only component that increased this month. Average duration of unemployment, average prime rate charged by banks, change in labor cost per unit of output*, and ratio of manufacturing and trade inventories to sales* held steady in January. Based on revised data, the lagging index decreased 0.3 percent in December and decreased 0.4 percent in November.

DATA AVAILABILITY. The data series used by The Conference Board to compute the three composite indexes and reported in the tables in this release are those available "as of" 12 Noon on February 19, 2003. Some series are estimated as noted below.

NOTES: Series in the leading index that are based on The Conference Board estimates are manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods and materials, manufacturers' new orders for nondefense capital goods, and the personal consumption expenditure deflator for money supply. Series in the coincident index that are based on The Conference Board estimates are personal income less transfer payments and manufacturing and trade sales. Series in the lagging index that are based on The Conference Board estimates are inventories to sales ratio, change in CPI for services, consumer installment credit to income ratio, change in labor cost per unit of output, and the personal consumption expenditure deflator for commercial and industrial loans outstanding.

Hardly plummeting

Kanth · « **Reply #44 on:** February 25, 2003, 12:01:10 PM »

imo only if they use more government resources.

taxes are paid for use of government services, security, roads etc..

If someone is using more of these they should pay more taxes.

The idea that if someone makes more, they should pay more makes absolutely no sense to me.

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta
Toad, those earning more money should also pay more money in taxes. it's reasonable IMHO.