Democrats complain that targeted tax cuts are ...well...targeted
Flip the coin, and either side I win
Democratic critics are now contending that not everyone benefits from Bush's tax cut. First it was too large, now apparantly it isn't large enough because some folks don't benefit from it.
Nick
Democratic critics are now contending that not everyone benefits from Bush's tax cut. First it was too large, now apparantly it isn't large enough because some folks don't benefit from it.
Nick
Comments
The new analysis says that the taxpayers who get nothing from the tax law are primarily low-income single people who do not have children and lack income from dividends or capital gains. A large number of low- and moderate-income single parents with children over 16 will also get no benefit from the law, because it did not change the tax rate for such parents who are unmarried.
The study was conducted by two groups who have been critical of the law, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which is affiliated with the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group.
Last week, the two groups, along with Citizens for Tax Justice, found that 6.5 million minimum-wage families ? with nearly 12 million children ? would not receive the $400-per-child increase in the child tax credit contained in the new law. The families were left out of the tax law in last-minute Congressional negotiations over how much to cut the tax on stock dividends and capital gains, while keeping the entire bill under the Senate limit of $350 billion.
It makes it pretty clear that these folks, literally triple exceptions, would not get the tax cut. They could write or modify the cut to include them, but that would raise the cost of the cut which again is opposed by Democrats. Lastly liberal groups are critical of the fact that these folks weren't included in the cut. So we have...
critical for the large tax cut...
critical for the small tax cut...
critical over exceptions to the tax cut...
critical over removing exceptions that would grow the tax cut...
Sounds like some easy to please people...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
critical for the large tax cut...
critical for the small tax cut...
critical over exceptions to the tax cut...
critical over removing exceptions that would grow the tax cut...
Sounds like some easy to please people...
Nick
You're spin doctoring as the other poster said.
Critical of excessive tax cuts for the wealthy with minimal tax cuts for the not wealthy. You're pretending that this isn't the case with the democrats when it is.
So, take an honest look at the issue and don't try and, dare I say it, create such an obvious straw man argument.
Child tax credit
Marriage penalty
Dividends on stocks
So I suppose only the rich have children and are married?
The tax credit applies even if you haven't paid ANY taxes. If you have 4 children and have paid absolutely NO taxes you will still get back $1000 per child.
Marriage penalty simply rewards commitment. You shouldn't be taxed more for being married than for living together.
Dividend on stocks wasn't eliminated, just lowered. The corporation still pays taxes for having the profit to distribute, and you would now pay slightly less for receiving that profit that has already been taxed. It is still double taxed. I don't see how that is somehow benefitting the rich to the detriment of the poor. Plenty of middle class people now invest in the stock market and shouldn't be envied because they can.
Nick
of course, then you get into "each according to their need, each according to their ability".
Originally posted by trumptman
Child tax credit
This is good.
Originally posted by trumptman
Marriage penalty
This is bad. There is no marriage penalty any more than there is now a 'single' penalty.
Originally posted by trumptman
Dividends on stocks
This is bad. The dollar amount of this going to the rich is greater than it is going to the middle class as you say and definitely the poor.
It is not a double tax. The corporation made the money. They pay a tax. You gain a dividend. You pay tax. Is my salary double taxed as well? No. When the money changes hands it's taxed.
So I'll say it again, the democrats are against the tax cuts biased towards the rich. You've avoided that argument. You've avoided that point. Your original post is crap and BS. It's a bad attempt at creating a false argument. It's been pointed out to you. Enjoy it.
Originally posted by jimmac
Everybody knows this tax cut is all about the rich.
As far as I can tell not everybody here is willing to admit that.
Originally posted by trumptman
The tax credit applies even if you haven't paid ANY taxes. If you have 4 children and have paid absolutely NO taxes you will still get back $1000 per child.
Marriage penalty simply rewards commitment. You shouldn't be taxed more for being married than for living together.
1st of those... Gee. AFAIK buying one child is from 50,000 $ upwards, at least double if you want to buy a white kid...
2nd makes sense instead. but i don't see why it would be the state's business what is my whatever status. if i don't want to be married, it should be just "free" with any of the non-married qualifying to the same stuff.
I thought the tax cuts would include no sales tax on purchases over 1,00,000 $ and on cruisers named after your brats.
Originally posted by bunge
This is good.
Glad you found something you like.
This is bad. There is no marriage penalty any more than there is now a 'single' penalty.
Incorrect when you filed the same return with two people and have a lower deductable amount of income, that is a penalty.
Married couples now get a standard deduction of $9,500, double the single filers' deduction and an increase from $7,950. Couples also get a break with an extension of their 15 percent tax rate to $56,800 of taxable income, up from $47,450, for a savings of $935.
If two single people living together filed before this, they got a $9500 deduction. Regardless of your inane attempts to tie this to how much it costs for them to live together/alone/sharing expenses etc. If you were married your deduction was only $7950, now it is $9500 as it should be, double the single rate.
This is bad. The dollar amount of this going to the rich is greater than it is going to the middle class as you say and definitely the poor.
Showing your spots eh? The money is not going to them, it is being RETURNED to them.
Their top rate is now 35 percent, down 3.6 percentage points. Other brackets dropped 2 percentage points, except the lowest, the 15 percent and 10 percent brackets. But under the new rules, the 10 percent rate applies to more income: the first $7,000 for single filers and the first $14,000 for couples, saving a single filer $50 and a couple $100.
So the old rate was 38.5% for the top versus 10% for the bottom. Now it is 35% (tax table for income). They are still paying 350% more taxes. When you also consider that in many cases, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, etc are paid REGARDLESS of whether any taxes are owed, it is just ridiculous. Someone with $12,000 of income (not taxable income) and 2 children is receiving about $5000 of "credits" being paid to them even though they haven't paid a dime of taxes! That means the government hands them $5000 CASH to spend while others have to pay. This is oppressing them how again? They didn't even earn it. It is pure redistribution.
It is not a double tax. The corporation made the money. They pay a tax. You gain a dividend. You pay tax. Is my salary double taxed as well? No. When the money changes hands it's taxed.
Actually your salary is double taxed. You and your employer both have to pay taxes on your salary. The most obvious example of this is Social Security which really ends up being 13%.
Again the dividend tax hasn't been eliminated, just reduced. The notion that when money changes hands, it should be taxed is yours alone. I don't believe in estate taxes, or taxes on social security income. (You were already taxed to create it, you shouldn't be taxed when you receive it)
So I'll say it again, the democrats are against the tax cuts biased towards the rich. You've avoided that argument. You've avoided that point. Your original post is crap and BS. It's a bad attempt at creating a false argument. It's been pointed out to you. Enjoy it.
You've made your case quite clear that whenever money changes hands, it should be taxed. By that definition I guess we are all "rich" since only a penniless pauper wouldn't owe taxes under your scheme. Your income isn't returned to you, it is the governments and they get to decide how much or little you should keep. When you have a progressive tax system where the rich pay the majority of the taxes, any cut is going to benefit them disportionately. When you already pay 4 times more taxes, getting to only pay 3-3.5 times more is a "benefit" in your tortured logic.
Nick
We are not living in the days of Robin Hood...or in a communist/socialist run country. Even though there is a romantic or noble notion about "taking from the rich to give to the poor", history shows that such tactics have no place in a free society.
In a FREE society, freedom is defined as the ability to live YOUR OWN life with the least unfair intrusion from the government. The constitution guarantees you "life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness"..."pursuit" being the key word. You are entitled to the right to PURSUE happiness. The government doesn't promise that it will be handed to you by overtaxing the "rich".
Anyone making $50,000 or more is now considered "rich"...and they are taxed EXCESSIVELY. Only those who feel that the government has the RIGHT to essentially rob the rich to feed the poor think that this is okay. And anyone who speaks out against overtaxation is branded unsympathetic to the plight of "working people". I'm sure that will happen to me.
Do you think people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates who are worth billions don't "work"? They, and millions of people like myself who earn over $50k a year, go to work every day, do our jobs, and deserve to keep OUR money. And only in the blind eyes of misinformed masses is it acceptable for me to just lie down and give up 40-50% of what I earn in one form of taxation or another.
If the government is concerned about deficits, it has two choices: Raise taxes, or decrease spending. Why is raising taxes (or keeping them where they are) always the first impulse? Report after report on government spending has shown that our government wastes 25 to 75 cents on EVERY DOLLAR we send to them! Is that the fault of the "rich"? Why should the rich be made responsible for righting all the financial wrongs of this country by parting with 50% of the money that THEY go to work to earn each day? When will that issue be challenged with the vigor and strength of those who broke off from England and created this country for that very reason?
Repeat after me: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TAX CUTS FOR THE "RICH"!
There never has been...that is left wing propaganda designed to scare voters, and unfortunately it has worked for 50 years. Taxes don't get cut by dollars...they get cut by PERCENTAGES. Anyone with an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL math education knows that 1% of ONE BILLION is a lot more than 1% of ONE THOUSAND. "Rich" people get more money back in taxes as a percentage of a tax cut because they pay more taxes as a percentage of the tax intake. This is Math 101, people.
If a corporation paying ONE MILLION in taxes a year gets a 1% tax cut, they get $10,000 back. If an individual paying $1000 in taxes a year gets a 10% cut, they get back $100. Even though the individual is being given 10 TIMES the tax relief (as a percentage) of the corporation in this example, people would complain that even though the corporation paid 1000 TIMES more taxes, it doesn't deserve the $10,000 back because "it can afford to pay that much."
Well, that's pretty much akin to someone knocking on your door to collect charitable donations by putting a gun to your head. Giving to charity is nice...but it's a choice, not a guarantee. And those who think our government should be run like a charity that collects from the rich to give to the poor don't have the faintest concept of true democracy. Maybe McDonalds should be given access to your tax records, and charge "rich" people $5 bucks for every item on the "working man's" Dollar Menu because "the rich" can afford that too.
The only way that you can claim that Mr. Rich Guy does not DESERVE to get his 1% back is to deny Mr. Rich Guy equal fairness under the law, and to say that it's okay to keep his money, since you're planning to use it to help "the poor". And that may be very noble, and I respect those who feel that way. But AT LEAST be willing to admit that you're depriving Mr. Rich Guy of HIS own money to help your cause.
I happen to agree that THIS particular tax cut gives more money back to those who paid more FEDERAL taxes. If you want to talk about tax cuts for "the working man", then I'm all for discussion on across-the-board cuts in payroll tax. However, payroll taxes go toward Medicare/Medicaid, and since the Democrats are unwilling to fix a system that is obviously broken, they can't very well come out in favor of cutting those funds. Instead, they blame the demise of the system on Republicans, and most people are foolish enough to buy into that.
I'm also all for one of the many proposed flat-tax systems, with a nationwide sales tax combined with tax credits for government defined "necessities" at all income levels, and doing away with the entire tax system as we know it today. The flat tax system is the only real system that is "fair", but this whole argument already proves that people already believe that rich and poor paying the same percentage of tax is inherantly "unfair", so what's the use? And since supporting such a system brands someone in politics as a "radical", regardless of their affiliation, I don't think we'll see that in our lifetimes.
There's a simple fact of life...if your neighbor happens to make twice as much money as you make, then guess what? He deserves to go out to dinner twice as much. He deserves to go on twice as many vacations. He deserves to buy twice as many nice things. He deserves a house that is twice as big as yours. And he deserves to pay NO MORE than TWICE the amount of taxes that you pay each year. It may not seem fair to you, but no one can argue the math. So if he is paying THREE TO FOUR times what you pay in taxes for the betterment of this country, and manages to get a LITTLE of it back, you have no right to criticise him for being happy about that.
Bottom line: Don't try to claim that Mr. Rich Guy isn't getting overtaxed, just because you happen to like what his money is being used for. That fact, while admirable, is completely irrelevant to the issue: Freedom from overtaxation...no matter how little or how much you happen to make.
-- Ensoniq
with real logic and numbers
followed immediately by
In an opinion article in the Washington Post
But Buffett said with the planned dividend tax cut, he conceivably could pay a mere 3 percent in income taxes.
that makes no sense. is he trying to say that his income is ALL from dividends? even if that were the case, they're getting taxed at 15%, not 3%. does he earn no other income? that's going to be taxed at 35%.
where in the world is this 3% number coming from. the article is a bit light on "facts" so to speak.
A Secretary should earn $30,000 and a CEO should earn $80,000. Not $20,000 and 10 million. That's why taxes have to be adjusted.
actually, that's why customers don't purchase things from business where they don't like their practices. this isn't a tax problem, it's a corporate structure problem. if you don't like the disparity, don't buy from companys that do it.
however, you might want to ask why one person gets paid so much more than another. do you think that in 1 week of training, a secretary could work as the CEO? could the CEO do the work of the secretary? does the CEO have contacts the secretary doesn't? political influence? creative ideas? there are a lot of reasons that a company will hire a CEO. usually they get paid a lot because a good CEO is hard to find. (granted there is corruption, but that's what the courts are for, not tax code).
it's just like how the best ball players get paid a lot more than the average ones. they can do something that few people can, so are worth more.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the top 5% of individuals own something like 95% of individually owned shares of the stock market. So a tax cut on dividends and capital gains is unquestionably a tax cut for the rich, and the rich alone.
this of course would have undergone a drastic change if people had been allowed to put 6% of their social security taxes into the stock market. it would have been the first time blue collar workers would have had a shot at investing. if nothing else, Vanguard and a few other companies would have been able to come up with some nice portfolios for people to invest in. but of course that was killed off. why do you think that was again? hell, SS returns jack squat over the long term. if you want blue collar people to invest and have some say in the financial markets, investing a locked in tax would have been the best way IMO.
Originally posted by tonton
I could take any number of stupid claims from that post and refute them at random with real logic and numbers. Here, I'll grab one randomly:
"And only in the blind eyes of misinformed masses is it acceptable for me to just lie down and give up 40-50% of what I earn in one form of taxation or another."
story
I think Buffet is playing you for a sucker. How could he "conceivably" only pay 3% since the dividend tax is still 15%?
You have to consider all sorts of things when gentlemen like Buffet speak. They could be trying to help you or drive you away from the direction they are heading. Buffet for example hasn't made any money in techs. He has made a ton of money picking durable companies just before they rebound, like Coke for example, and rides the train up the track so to speak. I would bet he is buying craploads of McDonalds right now and will benefit from it in about two years.
His problem? This tax cut sends people back into investing in the S&P 500 which pay large dividends. It will drive up their prices and hence, lower his profits. He likely wanted a different tax cut and so will use a little reverse psychology on his one.
The man didn't become the second richest man in America by broadcasting his moves and true intents before hand.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
But the CEO earns 500 times as much as his possibly Harvard educated, Mensa intelligence secretary. She works longer hours. But the board just took away medical coverage for her family while they bought him a chaufferred limo.
F%ck the greedy ****ing CEO. F%ck the board for giving him a golden parachute that costs the secretary her shirt when the company goes belly up because of creative accounting. And F$ck the Republicans who support that system.
A Secretary should earn $30,000 and a CEO should earn $80,000. Not $20,000 and 10 million. That's why taxes have to be adjusted.
So start a company and pay yourself $80,000 and your secretary $20,000.
Shows what you know as well. CEO's engage in this sort of creative accounting to manipulate the stock price. People focused on the stock price instead of dividends. Now they will focus on dividends which you cannot have without a true profit since, hey you have to pay them out, not just shift a number on a book.
This solves part of the problem you complain about, yet you are sharply critical of it.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO JUST JOINED US...
The article was written before the tax cuts were passed, and in it, Buffett's quotes refer to the proposed cuts that the Republicans wanted so vehemently, to eliminate taxes on dividends and capital gains. Even with the reduction to 15%, Buffett still would only pay about 20% tax on his income compared to his secretary's 30%. Yes. Almost all of his income is dividend-based.
Now, since the tax cut was passed, Buffett goes from 30% of 50 million to 20%, while his secretary (and five thousand other employees at that level for each person at a tenth of Buffet's level) goes from 30% of forty thousand to 30%. Real fair.
Buffet's bracket is 35% on income. The fact that he derives a way to receive money that is not from his salary is nothing new. The secretary pays 30% on her salary and he pays 35% on his. He has to pick companies that are going to be profitable. Invest enough money out of pocket into them to buy their stock, receive the dividend, and then only get taxed 15% on it.
What if he picks loser stocks? Well there would be no dividend, so no gain. What could happen to the stock price from going to profitability to losses? The price could tank which would mean a loss not only of the dividend income, but also a loss against the initial investment.
There is much more risk and hence reward than the secretary gets from just showing up her 40 hours a week.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
There is much more risk and hence reward than the secretary gets from just showing up her 40 hours a week.
Don't be a moron. The return is in the investment, not in the taxation. That's just idiotic.
What you're saying is the government should now control your rate of return on investments. I thought you conservatives were anti-government control?
No, I think you're all just lying to try and feel good.
Originally posted by trumptman
I think Buffet is playing you for a sucker. How could he "conceivably" only pay 3% since the dividend tax is still 15%?
Because he's talking about 2004, when the divended tax is slated to be completely gone, and not 2003, when it's "merely" going to be halved?
If anyone is playing anyone else for a sucker, it's Bush and the Republicans with these accounting tricks of doing phase-ins like this, and sunset dates that are only gimmicks.
The sunset dates are incredibly dishonest. They exist for only two reasons:
1) So Republicans can say that this tax cut is "only" a $350 billion over the next tens years, when the real intention is more like a trillion-dollar tax cut. Smoke and mirrors. If you think a trillion dollar tax cut is the right thing to do, be honest about it rather than trying to dress it up as being less.
2) To bludgeon any Democrat for being "in favor of a huge tax increase!!!" when the sunset dates come up (sunsets designed by Republicans), and the Democrat favors letting the Republicans own sunset date proceed as planned rather than extending the dates.
Originally posted by bunge
As far as I can tell not everybody here is willing to admit that.
Yes I know. That doesn't change the fact that it's obvious if you look at the facts. Most of the population will reap little or no benefits.