• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

fightenmad

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
I have to admit that my response comes from:
a. Speeches by Bush
b. Personal observation (dad)

My dad is a veteran. My dad is a baby boomer. He was shot up pretty bad on the 45th parallel as a marine...etc..

This year, his monthly check (which he qualifies for 100%, but only recieves 1% by requirement) has gone up significantly. The VA clinic, he is not near a large city, has said they have recieved funds for more equipment and people.

I did not get the time today to investigate this like I wanted. But, your source however is excellent. We just started FY 2005. It is pretty sick that the funds would go DOWN.
Your dad qualifies for 100% but recieves 1%? I'm not sure I understand.

As for sourcing speaches by Bush I'm sorry at this point I just don't find that source creditable. And that saddens me more then anyone might truely know. I'm sure by now it's more than apparent I'm not a hugh Bush fan. But At one point, believe it or not, he did in fact have my support. This was especially true on Sept. 12, 2001. Let's face it I wasn't alone. Bush had somewhere near a 94% approval at that time. At the time I rememeber thinking who are these 6% and exactly how dumb are they? Since then Bush has consistantly made me feel those 6% may not have been so stupid. Everything from his tax cuts that he said went to lower and middle class that, it turns out, did not. To his mantra of "I support the troops" that doesn't seem to be true either. It's all very troubling for me. I was in the Navy. I served over seas. Hell, I got 25' lighted flag pole that flys the American flag 24/7 in front of my house. I would love nothing more then to be able to believe what my President is telling me. I can't tell you how sad I am to find him "not a creditable source."

It's much the same way I feel about Fox News. When it comes to them I'm almost like an ex-smoker. I used to watch them quite often. Maybe not more then other cable news, but I watched them probably an equal amount. Then a guy who worked for me told me "they're full of sh*t and lie all the time." Well I knew the opinion stuff on there could be skewed to the right but the news itself was just the news. So I set out to prove him wrong. The more I looked into it the more I began to realize he was right. I don't like being lied to. At all. Pisses me off. Sure I liked what they were telling me most of the time, made me feel good sometimes. But if it's B.S. then what good is it? I've come to the conclusion that they're doing their viewers and the nation as a whole a complete disservice. But I could be wrong- let's hope I am.
 
Last edited:

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,361
Reaction score
7,496
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Your dad qualifies for 100% but recieves 1%? I'm not sure I understand.
Your right, this does indeed sound strange. My dad is a very proud man. He was shot 4 times and has a metal plate in his head. He doesn't want the governments money and told them as much. It's not because he doens't love this country or respect everyone in it. He is humble. "I did my time, They paid me while I was on the job, why should they pay me for doing nothing now?" But, by law he has to take disability from the government. The minimum is 1%.

Now that he is getting older, he is starting to take advantage of the medical that he needs. For years, I remember him going to a regular doctor so it was on his wallet - not the governments. He still tries to pay for it.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Pacridge
Everything from his tax cuts that he said went to lower and middle class that, it turns out, did not.

Please explain this to me. IF all tax brackets were dropped how is it that the tax cuts did not effect every tax payer.
This is one thing that really pissed me off regarding the dems this last election they continued to talk about the rich getting all the tax breaks however I am not rich and I know I got a couple checks from the federal government as well my tax rate dropped. Of course the rich got a tax cut everyone did. They got a bigger tax cut however they pay the most in taxes. I am admintly against diferent tax rates I think we should have a flat tax. Everyone pays a certain percentage. The rich would still pay more the poor would still pay less however it would be fair and even. IF we live in a country that everyone is equal shouldn't we all pay the same percentage? Why should someone who is rich have to pay a higher percentage than someone who is not?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
CSA_TX said:
Pacridge

Please explain this to me. IF all tax brackets were dropped how is it that the tax cuts did not effect every tax payer.
This is one thing that really pissed me off regarding the dems this last election they continued to talk about the rich getting all the tax breaks however I am not rich and I know I got a couple checks from the federal government as well my tax rate dropped. Of course the rich got a tax cut everyone did. They got a bigger tax cut however they pay the most in taxes. I am admintly against diferent tax rates I think we should have a flat tax. Everyone pays a certain percentage. The rich would still pay more the poor would still pay less however it would be fair and even. IF we live in a country that everyone is equal shouldn't we all pay the same percentage? Why should someone who is rich have to pay a higher percentage than someone who is not?
My problem is Bush said "The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." It turns out this just isn't true. The way the numbers really work out are: 42.6 percent of Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut package end up in the pockets of the top 1 percent of earners. The lowest 60 percent would net 12.6 percent. So the vast majority does not go to the bottom it ends up going to the top. You can verify these number sat any nuber of sources including the OMB.

Now, I don't find it appauling, per se, to give tax cuts to the wealthly. Although some very wealthly people including a guy named Warren Buffett, one of the nations richest men, called it "voodoo economics"

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/20/news/buffett_tax/

I'm just opposed to selling the American people a plan based on lies. If you're going to cut taxes and the vast majority is going to go to the wealthly don't go around telling people the opposite. That's all I'm saying.

Also, in this last election I found it interesting that when Kerry spoke about reversing the cuts on the upper end, those in the top 2%. Bush's arguement was "When you try to tax the rich, you know what they do? They dodge, you pay." So rather then try and tax the wealthly it just makes sense to keep making the middle class and the poor to keep flipping the bill? You know because they're not going to pay anyway and there's no sense in trying to make them, so there.:screwy
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Pacridge thanks for clarifing your position. True the wealthy did receive a healthy tax cut, However the point I was trying to make is that through the whole election cycle all the Dems continued to say was that Bush cut taxes for the wealthy when in reality all tax payers received a tax cut. Of course this is not what was brought up.
I think we need to go to a flat tax per my earlier argument. What do you think?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Flat tax? I don't know. I honestly don't know enough about the numbers to give a good argument in either direction. On one hand it sure sounds fair that everybody pays an equal amount of what they make. On the other hand what % would it take to keep things running? If you had an older person, or young for that matter, making 12,000 a year and you had to take say 5% that's $600. Ok but what if you had to take 10%, 15% or 20%? I know a lot of the flat tax people have these numbers way lower but I'm a little more then a little skeptical when at times I've been paying upwards of 40%.
 
Last edited:

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,361
Reaction score
7,496
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Here is a start Tax Reforms.

Gunna start a thread about Flat tax....
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
I Know a few people that would like to see a national sale tax instead of income taxes. However I don't think that is a good way to go. The thought of 15% to 20% tax on top of my 40k truck kinda makes me squimesh at the thought. I do beleive the tax code needs to be simplified and the easiest fairest way I have seen is the flat tax, however you bring up a good point in regards to %.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Flat tax would never work. Federal income tax, as it works now, takes out a certain percentage based upon your standings (married, children, etc.). You pay a percentage of your income to the government for protection, education, etc. The reason why the rich pay more is simply because they have a higher income to tax.

Now lets play the number game. Here is a well laid out chart of tax information due to the Bush tax cuts.

2004 Rates Change Due to Bush Cuts
Lowest 20%
5.2% -1.5%
Second 20%
11.1% -2.1%
Middle 20%
14.6% -1.9%
Fourth 20%
18.5% -2.1%
Top 20%
23.8% -3.9%
Top 5%
25.6% -5.2%
Top 1%
26.7% -6.8%
Share of Federal Tax Burden
Lowest 20%
1.1%
-0.1%

Second 20%
5.2%
-0.2%

Middle 20%
10.5%
+0.2%

Fourth 20%
19.5%
+0.7%

Top 20%
63.5%
-0.6%

Top 5%
35.9%
-1.5%

Top 1%
20.1%
-1.8%


Source: Congressional Budget Office, "Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law , 2001 to 2014," Tables 2, 4.

I'm too lazy to organize the rest. Anyway, as you see in that data there. The SHARE of the Federal Tax Burder INCREASED on the middle class and DECREASED THE MOST on the top 5% and top 1%. Is this fair? I think not.

If you make a flat pay, the lower and middle classes will pay EVEN MORE money towards tax while the upper class will pay even less.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
heyjoeo said:
I'm too lazy to organize the rest. Anyway, as you see in that data there. The SHARE of the Federal Tax Burder INCREASED on the middle class and DECREASED THE MOST on the top 5% and top 1%. Is this fair? I think not.

If you make a flat pay, the lower and middle classes will pay EVEN MORE money towards tax while the upper class will pay even less.
That's kind of what I've been suspecting. A flat tax would place a larger overall burden on the least able to pay. But on the surface it sounds very good. It's kinda like the position of "it's it a good thing when we cut everybody taxes equally, I mean isn't that just fair?" Well, yes and no. Life and taxes aren't always that simple. Things aren't quite that black and white. Thanks for getting those numbers.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,361
Reaction score
7,496
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That's kind of what I've been suspecting. A flat tax would place a larger overall burden on the least able to pay.
Quoted from site above:

About Flat Tax:
"Taxable income is defined as total income minus savings and investments minus a threshold income. The typical family threshold income is $36,800."

If you make LESS than $36,800 a year - you pay nothing in the Flat Tax system.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Haha thats hilarious. Who has the investments in America? The rich. The ends always meet with the rich paying less taxes. With "improvements" to the middle and lower classes. I'm not sure you are analyzing that statement about Flat Tax correctly, I'm a little lost, the wording is poor.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,361
Reaction score
7,496
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This is the Flat tax that CSA is advocating. I prefer the National Sales tax...
This thread has gotten WAY off topic.
:boom
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
vauge said:
Quoted from site above:

About Flat Tax:
"Taxable income is defined as total income minus savings and investments minus a threshold income. The typical family threshold income is $36,800."

If you make LESS than $36,800 a year - you pay nothing in the Flat Tax system.
It almost sounds too good to be true. You know what they say about things that sound too good to be true?

Currently the tax burden on the population with an income level below $35,000 is so great I find it impossible to believe that this would reduce their tax burden to 0%. If it were true sign me up. But then I also believed "by far the vast majority of my tax cuts will go to those at the bottom" so call me skeptical but I've been lied to before.
 

Argonaut

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Extreme Northern California
heyjoeo said:
Share of Federal Tax Burden
Lowest 20%
1.1%
-0.1%

Second 20%
5.2%
-0.2%

Middle 20%
10.5%
+0.2%

Fourth 20%
19.5%
+0.7%

Top 20%
63.5%
-0.6%

Top 5%
35.9%
-1.5%

Top 1%
20.1%
-1.8%


Source: Congressional Budget Office, "Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law , 2001 to 2014," Tables 2, 4.

Of course, another way of looking at it (using your numbers) would be:

For every 100 american taxpayers (divided into fifths, or 20% increments):

The lowest earning americans (20% of all americans-aka "the poor") only paid 1,1% of the nations bills.

The second lowest earning americans (another 20% of all americans-the "working poor/lower middle class") only paid 5.2% of the nations bills.

The third lowest earning americans (another 20% of americans- the "middle class") only paid 10.2% of the nations bills.

The fourth lowest (or second highest 20% of american taxpayers...the "upper-middle class" depending on your "Point Of View") paid 19.5% of the nations bills. This is the first group to come close to paying their fare share of the nations bills in relation to their representaion in society.

And finally,the fifth lowest earning 20% of americans (or top earning 20%, again depending on POV- you know, the "rich" people) paid an absolutely overwhelming 63.5% of the national bills in relation to their representation in society.

These are your numbers remember, and they really are quite striking! For instance:

The top 40% of american earners (the "upper-middle class" and the "rich") together are paying 83% of the nations bills.

The "bottom" 60% of american earners (the "middle class", the "working poor", and the "poor") together pay for a paltry 17% of the nations bills.

For every one hundred earners/taxpayers in america, the "richest" one of them (that's 1 out of 100) is paying over 20% of the nations bills.

For every one hundred earners/taxpayers in america, the "richest" five of them (that's 5 out of 100) are paying nearly 40% of the nations bills.

Again, these are your numbers!

If you don't get it yet, read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. You might also want to check out some Adam Smith and John Locke. :D
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Yes, the top pay more. But they make the most, by far. By very, very far. It would boggle the mind of most hard working people in this country the amount of money these people are making. The difference between the haves and the have nots is vast. When you have a CEO making, say, 29 million like H. Lee Scott of Wal-Mart did last year. Then instructing his employees who to sign up for food stamps and other government assistance because the company can't pay you enough to support your family. Well then top wage earners, and quite frankly the businesses they run, need to to be taxed to pay for the governement assistance they're sending their employees to go get.

BTW I'm not making that up. It is part of Wal-Marts employee orientation at a majority of it's stores to explain to new employees how to sign up for food stamps and such, as their pay, if they have families will not support them. 60 minutes did an under cover piece on this over the past summer. I also think Time did an article on this but I haven't seen it. Course now that they received the bad, bad press about it maybe they've stopped the instructions. The need for assistance I assure you hasn't stopped.

http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/walmart/
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom