NationStates Jolt Archive

Killing the Class-Warfare Argument
The rich are paying more taxes since the Bush tax cuts.



One of the inconvenient facts for the foes of the Bush tax cuts is that the percentage of total taxes paid by the rich rose after the economic stimulus plan was put into effect. This consequence of the Bush tax cuts is highly damaging to the case by the Bush-haters that his tax cuts disproportionately benefit Halliburton executives and Bill Gates. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts took some 2 million low-income taxpayers off the tax roles entirely, so it’s hard to argue that working families didn’t get a financial benefit.


But the Left continues to work as best it can around these facts. The Kerry-Edwards campaign is now touting a new study by the Congressional Budget Office which purportedly finds that last year’s tax cut was tilted to the rich. There’s just one problem with this class-warfare whine: It just isn’t true.

What the CBO report did conclude was that the total tax share by the richest 1 percent declined modestly from 2001 to 2004. But that wasn’t because of the tax cut. It was because of the recession. When the economy contracts and incomes fall as they did in 2001 and 2002, tax payments by the wealthy fall the fastest. This is because of the progressive rate structure of the income tax. In other words, if everyone’s income falls by 10 percent, the overall percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy falls, because they pay a higher marginal tax rate.

What this means is that the best way to get the rich to pay more taxes is to incentivize their incomes to rise. For every extra dollar the rich person earns, about 30 to 40 cents goes into the government coffers. And since the Bush tax cuts have helped put the economy back on track, as evidenced by the 4.5 percent real growth rate of the economy since May 2003, the share of taxes paid by the rich has started to rise again.

Those who actually read the CBO study will discover that it confirms exactly this point. From 2001 to 2004 incomes have fallen sharply for the highest income groups. IRS data shows that in 2002, taxable income fell by about 4.3 percent, with declines steepest among the highest income groups. In 2002, income fell for the second year in a row. Prior to 2000, annual incomes hadn’t fallen since 1953. The New York Times recently reported that income fell 63 percent from 2000 to 2002 for the highest income bracket. When the rich make less; so does the government. So why do members of the Left hate the rich so much? Without them, there would be no money to finance the government.

A recent report from the Treasury Department confirms that the rich are paying a bigger share of taxes than they would if the Bush tax cuts hadn’t passed. The Treasury estimates that the top 1 percent of earners will pay about 32.3 percent of taxes this year, which is the same as the CBO estimate. The Treasury also estimates, however, that absent the tax cuts, the top 1 percent would be paying only 30.5 percent of taxes, down 10 percent from 2001.

The Treasury data confirm that the real impact of the tax cuts on the rich has been precisely the opposite of what the CBO study suggests. By resuscitating the economy and spurring a turnaround in income growth, the tax cuts have increased the share paid by the rich. Real income growth has increased significantly since the 2003 tax cuts were passed, increasing at faster than a 6 percent rate in the first two quarters of 2004. With the economy now growing more quickly, we can expect the tax shares paid by high-income groups to increase.

There is another reason to suspect that as the Bush tax cuts continue to kick in, they will increase tax payments by the wealthy. People are much more likely to work harder, engage in entrepreneurial activity, and make investments when the government is confiscating less of the monetary rewards for these activities. When you tax something, you get less of it.

This is obvious to most people. It’s why we tax socially undesirable activities like smoking and drinking. It’s why we fine people for traffic violations. Similarly, when we tax income, people tend to have less of it — either from working less or spending their time, effort, and money on tax-avoidance schemes. JFK understood this, writing that “Middle and higher-income families are both consumers and investors — and the present rates not only check consumption but discourage investment, and encourage the diversion of funds and effort into activities aimed more at the avoidance of taxes than the efficient production of goods.”

Those who argue that the Bush tax cuts were a “give-away” to the rich assume that incomes grow at a constant rate, regardless of how heavily they are taxed. That is the fallacy of the recent CBO study. The report concedes: “Our analysis does not account for incomes changing in response to the tax cuts.” It’s like assuming that you’re not going to take off any weight if you stop eating hot fudge sundaes with whipped cream and cherries on top. This is the same whimsical logic that compelled the tax accountants on Capitol Hill to famously estimate that a 100 percent income-tax rate would bring in billions of dollars in federal revenue.

One final point: The CBO study confirms that the rich carry the bulk of the tax burden on their shoulders. The CBO estimate says that the share of income taxes paid by the richest 20 percent of earners fell from 82.5 percent to 82.1 percent in 2004. The report also states that the top 10 percent of earners will pay “only” 66.7 percent of 2004 taxes, with the top 1 percent paying 32.3 percent. Fully 80 percent of Americans pay less than 18 percent of total income taxes. Not even Al Sharpton could look at this data and say the rich are getting a free ride.

How much exactly does the Kerry-Edwards team want the rich to pay? Seventy percent? Eighty percent? One hundred percent? Does the Left want rich people like Barbara Streisand, George Soros, Teresa Heinz, and Ted Kennedy to pay all the taxes? Hey, now there’s an idea . . .

http://www.nationalreview.com/moore/moore200408191201.asp

Ok, so assuming that is argument isn't total bullshit, then Bush is slightly less evil than I thought. I'm still not voting for him, and neither is the voting majority.

neither is the voting majority.

I believe the numbers are

Repubs:51.0%
Dems: 46.7%

So its pretty much a mystery who will win since thats not going to stay constant

Nice find Susa,the article seems to make quite a bit of sense, however i wouldnt really consider that a reliable source. Could you do a bit more research into this?

However our government doesn't spend taxpayers' dollars properly. This is prolly impossible, but we could trim extra spending by not giving away so much cash to special interest groups

Ok, so assuming that is argument isn't total bullshit, then Bush is slightly less evil than I thought. I'm still not voting for him, and neither is the voting majority.
No, sorry, unfortunately it is.



A recent report from the Treasury Department confirms that the rich are paying a bigger share of taxes than they would if the Bush tax cuts hadn’t passed. The Treasury estimates that the top 1 percent of earners will pay about 32.3 percent of taxes this year, which is the same as the CBO estimate. The Treasury also estimates, however, that absent the tax cuts, the top 1 percent would be paying only 30.5 percent of taxes, down 10 percent from 2001.

Bush reduces taxes on rich people: rich people end up paying a larger % of the tax revenue. There are 3 ways this is possible
a) the incomes of rich people goes up so they are paying more in dollars, but a smaller percentage (rich people still have more money in this scenario)

b) if poorer people are earning less, therefore their contribution to the government's coffers is reduced (poor people have less money)

c) the total budget of the government is lower because essential government services are being cut (eg: public education and healthcare, things which disproportionately benefit poorer people)

In fact, all three of these things are true.

zing!

I believe the numbers are

Repubs:51.0%
Dems: 46.7%

So its pretty much a mystery who will win since thats not going to stay constant

Nice find Susa,the article seems to make quite a bit of sense, however i wouldnt really consider that a reliable source. Could you do a bit more research into this?
What?

Pct: Bush 46.9%, Kerry 51.3%

Latest election-projection projection

(http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html)

However our government doesn't spend taxpayers' dollars properly. This is prolly impossible, but we could trim extra spending by not giving away so much cash to special interest groups
The rich have always paid most of the taxes. But they're still richer than the people who pay less taxes, so its not like they're hard done by or anything.

No, sorry, unfortunately it is.



Bush reduces taxes on rich people: rich people end up paying a larger % of the tax revenue. There are 3 ways this is possible
a) the incomes of rich people goes up so they are paying more in dollars, but a smaller percentage (rich people still have more money in this scenario)

b) if poorer people are earning less, therefore their contribution to the government's coffers is reduced (poor people have less money)

c) the total budget of the government is lower because essential government services are being cut (eg: public education and healthcare, things which disproportionately benefit poorer people)

In fact, all three of these things are true.
I didnt write this.

How do the rich get rich?
They find ways to avoid paying taxes.

What?

Pct: Bush 46.9%, Kerry 51.3%

Latest election-projection projection

(http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html)
I was feeling pretty down today, but that projection has cheered me right up.

How do the rich get rich?
They find ways to avoid paying taxes.
Uhhh, no, unless you inherited money, you have to be intelligent and work very hard to gain wealth.

I didnt write this.
I know. Its not your fault, its just a dodgy analysis. A smoke and mirrors trick, they say "rich are paying more in tax! rich are paying a higher proportion of taxes!", but if the actual tax rate that they're paying has gone down, then these are actually two signs that things are going well for rich people.

Uhhh, no, unless you inherited money, you have to be intelligent and work very hard to gain wealth.
Well, thats not entirely true. Capital Gains for instance is where money makes money by itself, you don't have to do anything. A vast proportion of the wealth of the wealthiest people is earned on capital gains.

This is why I feel so adamantly that trickle down economics work. Even though less of a percentage of tax revenue is being paid, there is more incoming tax revenue from this income group, due to the increased wealth. This is a sign that the money will eventually work its way down, just like during the eighties. It'd be especially true if the money was invested, or even saved. Money in savings accounts is, after all, a loan to the bank.

This is why I feel so adamantly that trickle down economics work. Even though less of a percentage of tax revenue is being paid, there is more incoming tax revenue from this income group, due to the increased wealth. This is a sign that the money will eventually work its way down, just like during the eighties. It'd be especially true if the money was invested, or even saved. Money in savings accounts is, after all, a loan to the bank.
Aware of what happened, oh, around 1988?

Aware of what happened, oh, around 1988?
You mean the stock market crash? That was from a number of factors that was actually because of too much money. One was the rapid devaluation of the dollar, and the other was too much investment capital. Of course, the crash had none of the impacts of that of 1929, even though this one was steeper. And the markets were back to pre-crash levels in a year. I'm convinced that it was from an economy that exploded at the time, resulting in far too much money even to be spent. But the global economy recovered from that crash very quickly.

You mean the stock market crash? That was from a number of factors that was actually because of too much money. One was the rapid devaluation of the dollar, and the other was too much investment capital. Of course, the crash had none of the impacts of that of 1929, even though this one was steeper. And the markets were back to pre-crash levels in a year. I'm convinced that it was from an economy that exploded at the time, resulting in far too much money even to be spent. But the global economy recovered from that crash very quickly.
Care to take a guess why it had too much money/the dollar was dropping in value?

This is why I feel so adamantly that trickle down economics work.
The fact that its failed in the past doesn't deter you?

Even though less of a percentage of tax revenue is being paid, there is more incoming tax revenue from this income group, due to the increased wealth.You assume though that the tax break is linked to the increase in wealth. And, as I pointed out in my post, the analysis of those statistics show that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Thats not trickle down economics, thats just a top-heavy wealth system.

This is a sign that the money will eventually work its way down, just like during the eighties. It'd be especially true if the money was invested, or even saved. Money in savings accounts is, after all, a loan to the bank.From what I see on tv adverts, the financial sector seems determined to screw poor people over by offering them loans or credit cards at 19.9% APR that they'll never be able to make the monthly payments on. I'm not sure that the banks having more money will help the people at the bottom of the trickle that much.

Care to take a guess why it had too much money/the dollar was dropping in value?
The dollar was dropping in value because of the previous decade's flotation of currencies? Okay, that's not the answer you're looking for. How about Japan? They contributed to the trade deficit, and at the time, they had a tremendous amount of capital to spend. In fact, one of the reasons their economy tumbled in the nineties was because of overinvestment.
Okay, I know you want me to say trickle down policies. But why was the crash a bad thing?

This is why I feel so adamantly that trickle down economics work. Even though less of a percentage of tax revenue is being paid, there is more incoming tax revenue from this income group, due to the increased wealth. This is a sign that the money will eventually work its way down, just like during the eighties. It'd be especially true if the money was invested, or even saved. Money in savings accounts is, after all, a loan to the bank.

It does?????????? :eek:

I am still waiting for it to fall on me? Oh wait. I did notice a couple more dollars this paycheck so maybe that was it?

The fact that its failed in the past doesn't deter you?
It hasn't detered me at all. In fact, the US economy grew by $5.5 trillion in twenty years, or doubled in size.

You assume though that the tax break is linked to the increase in wealth. And, as I pointed out in my post, the analysis of those statistics show that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Thats not trickle down economics, thats just a top-heavy wealth system.
That's based on the widening gap between rich and poor, but that doesn't mean that anyone at the bottom brackets are loosing money. It's simply because of investments, where most of the wealthiest tier of people have their assets.
From what I see on tv adverts, the financial sector seems determined to screw poor people over by offering them loans or credit cards at 19.9% APR that they'll never be able to make the monthly payments on. I'm not sure that the banks having more money will help the people at the bottom of the trickle that much.
Let me guess, it's because no one pays during the grace period. On credit cards, at least, there's usually a period of around thirty days where payments can be payed at 0% interest.
In any case, this certainly means more money for car loans, mortgages, etc. Some are better at paying them than others, but for those who can, there is plenty of cash floating about. There's also quite a bit for the backbone of the economy: those starting small businesses. In the eighties, for example, was the first time the infamous "junk bonds" appeared. While they can be speculative, they provide the needed capital to even the smallest of businesses.

What?

Pct: Bush 46.9%, Kerry 51.3%

Latest election-projection projection

(http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html)

Phew, if those numbers are correct, Bush is gonna win again. Was scared for a moment there.

It does?????????? :eek:

I am still waiting for it to fall on me? Oh wait. I did notice a couple more dollars this paycheck so maybe that was it?
I'm sure you noticed that the economy in the US has gotten better since the late seventies.

Trickle down / supply side economics is the theory of feeding the birds by first feeding the horses. In other words we (the non-rich) get sh*t.

It didn't work in the 20's. It didn't work in the 80's. It doesn't work now.

The dollar was dropping in value because of the previous decade's flotation of currencies? Okay, that's not the answer you're looking for. How about Japan? They contributed to the trade deficit, and at the time, they had a tremendous amount of capital to spend. In fact, one of the reasons their economy tumbled in the nineties was because of overinvestment.
Okay, I know you want me to say trickle down policies. But why was the crash a bad thing?
Not really, because it doesn't trickle down. I was more referring to the amount of money floating around because of the tax cuts/the deficits that he started to run later in the term (destablizing the dollar quite a bit).


You do know that Reagan later raised taxes, right?

I believe the numbers are

Repubs:51.0%
Dems: 46.7%

So its pretty much a mystery who will win since thats not going to stay constant

Nice find Susa,the article seems to make quite a bit of sense, however i wouldnt really consider that a reliable source. Could you do a bit more research into this?

Not even close. According to CNN, which is alarmingly biased towards the Republicans, it's Republicans 44%, Democrats 46%. That's a competency thing. If you ask who would actually when an election, the latest I heard was Republicans 39%, Democrats 55%, Green 6%, and both the Republicans and Greens are currently losing support to the Democrats.

I believe the numbers are

Repubs:51.0%
Dems: 46.7%

So its pretty much a mystery who will win since thats not going to stay constant

Nice find Susa,the article seems to make quite a bit of sense, however i wouldnt really consider that a reliable source. Could you do a bit more research into this?

Someone else posted the site, and you have it backwards. The Democrats have 51, and vice versa.

Not really, because it doesn't trickle down. I was more referring to the amount of money floating around because of the tax cuts/the deficits that he started to run later in the term (destablizing the dollar quite a bit).


You do know that Reagan later raised taxes, right?
I do. But the trend he started was irreversable. 1982 was the greatest year for the US economy, I can argue, because of the tremendous gobs of money that entered the financial system. Besides, it never got back up to a 70% tax bracket.
And btw, the deficit reached its peak in 1983, or at least as a percentage of GDP.

I'm sure you noticed that the economy in the US has gotten better since the late seventies.

No, actually I think I my parents had it better then I do.

My mom and my wifes parents have said that if they were just starting out they could not make it in California today.

So no I don't think things are better.....

No, actually I think I my parents had it better then I do.

My mom and my wifes parents have said that if they were just starting out they could not make it in California today.

So no I don't think things are better.....
Well, that's California. It's probably not worse than the seventies, but it is certainly worse now because of the tech bubble. The Californian economy was riding on that. Still, the economy makes up 1/5 of the total US economy.

It hasn't detered me at all. In fact, the US economy grew by $5.5 trillion in twenty years, or doubled in size.Right, but has the benefit been experienced equally between the poor and the rich? It has not.

That's based on the widening gap between rich and poor, but that doesn't mean that anyone at the bottom brackets are loosing money. It's simply because of investments, where most of the wealthiest tier of people have their assets.Right, exactly a widening gap between rich and poor. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. What does this mean? It means its not trickling down.


Let me guess, it's because no one pays during the grace period. On credit cards, at least, there's usually a period of around thirty days where payments can be payed at 0% interest.
Yeah, but you have to be an economic whizz to understand all the stuff, and most people aren't, and are easily mislead by advertising.

I'm sure you noticed that the economy in the US has gotten better since the late seventies.
Technology is better not the ecomony, inflation is higher before Bush lower after so about same. (Bush jr gave us deflation, our money is almost worth same as candian, isn't that scary)

Technology is better not the ecomony, inflation is higher before Bush lower after so about same. (Bush jr gave us deflation, our money is almost worth same as candian, isn't that scary)
Actually, that sounds like music to my ears. It means that our exports are cheaper. Unfortunatly, the yuan is pegged to the dollar, meaning that the US can never compete with China overseas.
And technology is better, yes, but did technology double the economy's size in just ten years? I mean, I know it's important, but the tech sector isn't that big of a portion of our economy.

Advances in technology would mean more efficiency which would lead to a better economy.

The Rich pay more taxes since the Bush Tax cuts

I believe in flat taxes. As in, everyone should pay equal taxes, despite social status.

Right, but has the benefit been experienced equally between the poor and the rich? It has not.
I think it has created a lot of new oppritunities even for the middle class. Ever since the eighties, for example, houses have gotten bigger and bigger. Why have I chosen such an arcane thing as houses? Well, because construction methods haven't really changed since the fifties. Technology can't be blamed for a.) larger homes, or b.) more fixtures in homes (like more light sockets).

Right, exactly a widening gap between rich and poor. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. What does this mean? It means its not trickling down.
The gap doesn't mean much about incomes among the poor. They can be going down, but with the recent economic indicators, it's lead me to believe that it has remained the same.



Yeah, but you have to be an economic whizz to understand all the stuff, and most people aren't, and are easily mislead by advertising.
Well, what can I say? This is a risk of the free market. It's an unethical practice, but not illegal.

(Bush jr gave us deflation, our money is almost worth same as candian, isn't that scary)
That isn't a sign of deflation either, its a sign of inflation. Our money is worth less than it used to be compared to other currencies which would be inflation, not deflation. Its only one sign, though, and it dosen't mean the US is experiencing deflation under George Bush Jr., because its not. Its probably more of an product of the huge trade deficit than anything else.

That isn't a sign of deflation either, its a sign of inflation. Our money is worth less than it used to be compared to other currencies which would be inflation, not deflation. Its only one sign, though, and it dosen't mean the US is experiencing deflation under George Bush Jr., because its not. Its probably more of an product of the huge trade deficit than anything else.
You say because its not, but why do you think its not?
Payrolls are 10% less on average in last 4 years.

The gap doesn't mean much about incomes among the poor. They can be going down, but with the recent economic indicators, it's lead me to believe that it has remained the same.If the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than the poor, then that means that, when you factor in inflation, poor people have less money.

Well, what can I say? This is a risk of the free market. It's an unethical practice, but not illegal.
I never said it was illegal, but it tends to be another one of those things that screws poor people.

That isn't a sign of deflation either, its a sign of inflation. Our money is worth less than it used to be compared to other currencies which would be inflation, not deflation. Its only one sign, though, and it dosen't mean the US is experiencing deflation under George Bush Jr., because its not. Its probably more of an product of the huge trade deficit than anything else.
A weak dollar is actually a good thing with our trade deficit, because it makes American goods cheaper abroad. Already, tourism to the US has gone up. However, China's yuan is pegged to the dollar, making it nearly impossible to compete with them overseas.

It is against a rich person's interests to hire employees. An employee is more than a salary, there is insurance, sick time and other things to consider. People are expensive. Trickle down / supply side economics assumes that the rich will say, "Wow, I've got more money, I think I'll hire more people." This is a false assumption. The US economy is based on mass consumption. The lower classes need more expendable income to keep the economy moving. Before you complain about that welfare family blowing their big tax return in a week, think about where that money goes - back to the corporations of the rich. High taxes for the rich, big refunds for the poor. The poor spend all their money - the rich make more money and the cycle continues. Everyone wins. Big government is better because it spends more and feeds the economy. Most government spending is in ........contracts, so businesses prosper. Just my 2 cents. I'm voting for FDR.

You say because its not, but why do you think its not?
Payrolls are 10% less on average in last 4 years.
That means companies are paying their workers less, not that the country is experiencing deflation. The CPI (Consumer Price Index, measures inflation) at January of 2001 was 175.1, now its 189.4.

If the rich are getting richer at a faster rate than the poor, then that means that, when you factor in inflation, poor people have less money.
Inflation has been marginal these past few months. I believe it's actually slowed since July. But if it ever gets out of hand, the Fed will raise interest rates. They always do that.

I never said it was illegal, but it tends to be another one of those things that screws poor people.
It screws everyone. They're loan sharks, investment scammers, all sorts of things that loose your money. Some of them are, in fact, illegal. However, the best thing to use when engaging with money is a bit of common sense: when it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

It is against a rich person's interests to hire employees. An employee is more than a salary, there is insurance, sick time and other things to consider. People are expensive. Trickle down / supply side economics assumes that the rich will say, "Wow, I've got more money, I think I'll hire more people." This is a false assumption. The US economy is based on mass consumption. The lower classes need more expendable income to keep the economy moving. Before you complain about that welfare family blowing their big tax return in a week, think about where that money goes - back to the corporations of the rich. High taxes for the rich, big refunds for the poor. The poor spend all their money - the rich make more money and the cycle continues. Everyone wins. Big government is better because it spends more and feeds the economy. Most government spending is in ........contracts, so businesses prosper. Just my 2 cents. I'm voting for FDR.
I agree that pump priming economics also works, as FDR showed. However, the best way to do it is with a surplus, and then redistribute the money among tax payers. If you all remember, Bush did that early in his term.
What would be the best pump priming policy, in my mind, is privatizing any new payments of Social Security, and distributing back what already is in the system. It'd create a tremendous amount of money to be spent. It may actually result in inflation, but only a moderate amount. And a moderate amount of inflation can actually be a good thing.

Inflation has been marginal these past few months. I believe it's actually slowed since July. But if it ever gets out of hand, the Fed will raise interest rates. They always do that.


It screws everyone. They're loan sharks, investment scammers, all sorts of things that loose your money. Some of them are, in fact, illegal. However, the best thing to use when engaging with money is a bit of common sense: when it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Yeah, but rich people don't need to borrow the money, and so are less likely to take a loan secured on their house, or get a credit card at 25% interest

Yeah, but rich people don't need to borrow the money, and so are less likely to take a loan secured on their house, or get a credit card at 25% interest
I think you forget that a middle class exists here, too. I'd describe myself as being upper middle class, yet my mom alone has two credit cards. My grandpa (who earned a pile of money from construction in the eighties) even has one. Besides, absolutely everyone I've ever met, including myself, has a mortgage of some form. Most have car loans.
Credit cards, btw, never start out at 25%. They always have that grace period, but most everyone I know has a balance on theirs. The thing that's so strikingly different about our economy compared to the rest of the world is that we don't just have debt, we seek it, and thrive on it. It's sad, really.

Ok, so assuming that is argument isn't total bullshit, then Bush is slightly less evil than I thought. I'm still not voting for him, and neither is the voting majority.

Vegas odds-makers have Bush as a slight favorite....

How do the rich get rich?
They find ways to avoid paying taxes.

Oh I'm sorry, not a single rich person achieved it by hard work, percervierance and ingenuity? Wow!

From what I see on tv adverts, the financial sector seems determined to screw poor people over by offering them loans or credit cards at 19.9% APR that they'll never be able to make the monthly payments on. I'm not sure that the banks having more money will help the people at the bottom of the trickle that much.

The 19+% rates you see on cards are unsecured loans in effect. There is NO collateral on them so the rate is higher. The rates that you see on actual bank loans (moragages, small business loans, car loans, etc) are much lower ranging from 10% at it's worse to 0% in the cases of some cars. Numbers are averages and may vary in some areas and the 0% car loans are rapidly vanishing.

Not even close. According to CNN, which is alarmingly biased towards the Republicans, it's Republicans 44%, Democrats 46%. That's a competency thing. If you ask who would actually when an election, the latest I heard was Republicans 39%, Democrats 55%, Green 6%, and both the Republicans and Greens are currently losing support to the Democrats.

Give it up on political polls. I've rarely found a one that wasn't biased one way or another. I once saw 5 seperate polls taken during the same time on the same issue and all 5 had diffrent results, beacused they all had diffrent questions. Screw the polls.

Yeah, but you have to be an economic whizz to understand all the stuff, and most people aren't, and are easily mislead by advertising.

That's their own fault for not bothering to learn about this stuff. While I will grant that the useage terms for the card read like stereo instructions, it's not that hard to learn how to properly use your finances. People are just getting too impatient and not bothering to take the time.

Big government is better because it spends more and feeds the economy. Most government spending is in ........contracts, so businesses prosper.

Tell that to the U.S.S.R.

The rich are paying more taxes since the Bush tax cuts.



But you're missing the point: they're still rich.

Ok now that I am done making responses....

Go and check out the Congressional Budget Office records. You will see that right after the tax cuts the income revenue increased. This happened after the Regan tax cuts and the JFK (FDR? the one before Regan) tax cuts. The biggest problem is that Bush is spending like it's going out of style (congress isn't helping either)

The arguement that benefits are being cut: That is only partially true. They are but not for the reasons you'd think. Not one program has been cut...in fact every year they just keep going up, no matter who is in office. The biggest problem is that more people are entering into the Social Services and other "gimme" programs and thus, even increased, the funds are spread thinner.

I like the flat tax idea. Make $1.00 pay .10 tax.....make $100, pay $1 tax...nice fair and even. Even better is getting rid of the incometax altogether. Go back to a consumption tax like we used to run on.

But you're missing the point: they're still rich.

And *your* point is......? Welcome to America. Get off your arse and work and you can be rich too. Am I rich? Not financially, but I am comfortable and happy where I am, I don't need to be rich. But If I wanted more then I'd just go get a second job. Not tell someone else thay have to support me via taxes funneled through a social services system

You suppose that as taxes rise, government revenue necessarily falls because people work less, or less productively. This is only partly true. The relationship between tax rates and government revenue is represented by the Laffer Curve, which basically rises to a maximum at some ideal tax rate. In other words, if you start at 0% and work your way up, for a while government revenue increases, but eventually you hit a point at which the tax rate actually discourages work (at least marginally), and government revenue begins to fall as the tax rate rises.

It's good theory, and makes good theoretical sense. The problem with applying it unreservedly to policy proposals (such as tax cuts for the rich) is that no one knows it's exact shape! That is, there is no theoretical answer to the question what is the ideal tax rate? All theory can tell us is that there should be one.

Instead, we have an empirical question: when will tax-frustration cause people to earn less? Unfortunately, we have no answer. In the 80s, economists believed that this point was relatively low, one of the judgments that helped push trickle-down economics. Since then, comparative evidence has suggested that the point at which tax increases adversely affect government revenue may be very high indeed -- even as high as the 90% range.

But still, there is no way to tell, which is why the study cited in this thread must concede that "their analysis does not account for incomes changing in response to the tax cuts." They cannot account for such changes, because no one knows what they will be -- or even if they exist at all.

How do the rich get rich?
They find ways to avoid paying taxes.


Yeah right!
the rich get rich by
a. working their asses off
b. Being born into it.
c. getting a huge lump sum ( insurance ) and investing it wisely.

But you're missing the point: they're still rich.

Oh i get it!
lets tax the rich until their middle class!! yeah thats really fair! balanced and democracy in its purest form!!!!

maybe none of you plan on being rich one day, but i definately do one way or another, and it is not fair to have the people who earn their money have to give it all to people who dont do shit with their lives.

Oh i get it!
lets tax the rich until their middle class!! yeah thats really fair! balanced and democracy in its purest form!!!!

maybe none of you plan on being rich one day, but i definately do one way or another, and it is not fair to have the people who earn their money have to give it all to people who dont do shit with their lives.
get real the rich are the biggest leeches in society-I should know

get real the rich are the biggest leeches in society-I should know


HAH
rich kids are the biggest leaches, rich Adults are not. I know alot of them, and theyve worked hard for every cent they earn.
Also isnt it teh rich that give us our jobs anyways?
Never bite the hand that feeds you.

HAH
rich kids are the biggest leaches, rich Adults are not. I know alot of them, and theyve worked hard for every cent they earn.
Also isnt it teh rich that give us our jobs anyways?
Never bite the hand that feeds you.
no-the rich are the ones that Bush gives tax breaks to to export american jobs

no-the rich are the ones that Bush gives tax breaks to to export american jobs

Did you know that kerry would do nothing to help outsource jobs?
Check out the link if you dont believe me :
Click HEre (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=225)

Plus why is outsourcing bad? why because we have workers who cant stay competitive in our own workforce?
Yeah ok who would you rather hire:
sumone who got a GED, or someone with a masters?
I know who id pick.
Yeah its sad that people must loose their jobs, but peoples problems is that they see shit like outsourcing coming and they dont evolve to meet todays new challenges! the wordl will always keep moving, it will never stop, so you need to keep up if you want to advance.
So outsourcing is a problem with our american workers, not stayign competitive in our marketplace, which means, go to college!( DUH! )
Not only that but jobs are made every day to replace the jobs that are lost, we have been outsourcing since REAGAN, and clinton did nothing to stop it, because its not smart. What so we should tell nissan to stop buildign factories here? should we stop importing jobs? you know we import more then we export? outsourcing is just plitical bullshit. I kno because my job is the one being outsourced, so what do i do? look for a way to still make money with that skill, its not hard ,it takes ingenuity and smarts.

And *your* point is......? Welcome to America. Get off your arse and work and you can be rich too. Am I rich? Not financially, but I am comfortable and happy where I am, I don't need to be rich. But If I wanted more then I'd just go get a second job. Not tell someone else thay have to support me via taxes funneled through a social services system


I already work 2 jobs, thank you very much. And I'm far from rich.

What is it with some of you people assuming that nobody on NationStates has jobs?