Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:

Quote:

If I am incorrect and he meant that the top 1% benefit *disproportionally* as you suggest, then he is still wrong. Because the top 1% do not benefit from the tax cuts disproportionally.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Evidence or argument please http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I would bet they probably get *absolutely* more money from the tax cuts, simply because they are so wealthy and pay so much tax. So what do you mean exactly....?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not American but ...

Wouldn't you say that ending inheritance taxes is of disproportionately greater benefit to the wealthy?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Speaking back to the article in question: if Bush really had wanted to help the workers of America he would have focused on the payroll tax and not on (I know this is a tired argument) the top 1%.

Geo I won't accuse of slander but what I meant is what I said (although a little tongue in cheek). Bush's FOCUS on the tax cut was for the 1% they got the largest amount of tax cut in terms of $ and % so arguably that was who the tax cut was focused on - sure the rest of us got some crumbs BUT IMO the FOCUS of his tax should have been on something else - and in this particular instance I proposed that it should have been relieving the working poor of the payroll tax burden.

I know it's hard to accept and for conservatives it's a convenient thing to forget so that they can claim that 50% pay 96% of the income tax, but the payroll tax, business tax, excise tax and income tax is put into one big pot as revenue and spent as the govt sees fit.

When you factor the payroll taxes and excise taxes into the revenue equation then *presto* all of a sudden the bottom 42% (not most but close to most) provide as much revenue as the top 1% but - here's the catch - they earn a lot less.

[ September 18, 2003, 05:33: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Well, let's see. The Social Security tax, the largest of the payroll taxes, is the creation of the liberal darling FDR, and if Bush suggested cutting that, every liberal in the country would be screaming their heads off at the unfairness of it all. Then there is the Medicare tax. The liberals would love it if Bush suggested cutting that one, because they could immediately begin slamming him for cutting services to the elderly. There isn't much else to cut that I can remember on a paycheck stub. Of course, since I haven't seen a real paycheck in over a year (good thing I'm one of those wealthy conservatives), I may have forgotten something. And, yes, I am familiar with the so-called payroll taxes, as I have to pay SE tax on what contracting I can scrounge up, so I get to pay double Social Security. Oh, and you'll have to forgive me for taking the measly $400 per kid, I kind of like feeding them.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never suggested he should cut the payroll tax. He should just stop spending it - and he should definitly stop using it fund his "tax cut".

Most "liberals" would be for a cut in payroll tax on people like you and me and that doesn't mean cutting social security. "Liberals" have proposed cutting the payroll tax - most of that revenue comes from the working poor after all - but it has been shot down by Republicans. The real underlying reason - of course - is that then they could not have passed an income tax cut which gives most of the money to the wealthy.

So if your situation is truly what you say it is then you are getting your $400 extra per child from Bush but you probably would have been better off with a "liberal" proposal of lowering social security tax and not Bush's proposal of an income tax cut.

EDIT:

I trolled around the internet and found an article in the Washington Post that effectively explains my point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

[ September 18, 2003, 08:02: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Isn't it nice that the focus of tax cuts is ALWAYS the wealthy? No matter what the tax cut is, it gets twisted to be about the wealthy (at least in some people's eyes...). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the way I see it.

Republicans are all about big business and company owned cities and want a Capatilistic society that only favors the rich living off the backs of the slaves. The slaves being you and I, or poor folk.

Demacrats are all about protecting people from their rights by trying to create a toltarian society whereas we all live in the future depicted in the Stallone movie Demolition Man were all the people were aloud to listen too were old comercial jingos.

Given the choice between living under the rich, with the illusion that I have rights, or living in a politically correct society with no rights, I would choose the republican way every time.

I hate the rich, but I know one thing they don't, I am resigned to the fact that death comes to us all, and you can't take your money with you, and at the gates to wherever, I will be there waiting for them with a smile on my face and baseball bat in my hands.

[ September 18, 2003, 08:53: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know how you feel - sometimes I feel sorry for wealthy people too - they're always picked on. It's unfortunate for them that they've gotten most of the benefit from Bush's tax cut.

[ September 18, 2003, 09:32: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You get taxed for playing Space Empires?

Damn, I'm gald I don't live in the US...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know how you feel - sometimes I feel sorry for wealthy people too - they're always picked on. It's unfortunate for them that they've gotten most of the benefit from Bush's tax cut.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh here we go again, lets blame Bush for all of the woes in the universe. If not for Clitonomics and the fact that he opened the flood gates for the chines so they could swamp our markets and under cut our industries with their products, our economy would not have tanked. 1998 was the beginning of the end for the Semi Conductor industry and many many other companies. (Oh ya, don't forget about NAFTA too and all the jobs that took away from us and sent south. Did you know that under article 11 of the NAFTA Treaty if a state passes a law that says a product can not be sold in the US, the company that makes it in a foriegn country can sue. And under the terms of NAFTA, they always win. Just ask California about that. They were sued by a Canadian company who makes poisonious gas cleaner addatives that the state had banded for being harmful to the environment.)

Clinton sold us down the drain to the chines for election money. This bad economy is mostly his doing, and to blame it on Bush is absurd. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif Ok you can blame a little of it on him. But not all of it.