Bush's Tax Cut: Effective?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I'll admit, I may not be as up on the tax code as you.  However, I can see credits being an incentive to donating - my point is that I just don't see Americans as inately generous.  In fact, what with the competitive ideals of capitalism, I don't think the whole system is designed to be generous.

That's your problem, you are equating the people to the system.  The system isn't designed to be generous, but that doesn't mean that people aren't or can't be.  You seem to be generous, and you are part of the system, and you are probably from a well off family, since your dad is a lawyer (not sure, but likely).

I'll admit, I may not be as up on the tax code as you.  However, I can see credits being an incentive to donating - my point is that I just don't see Americans as inately generous.  In fact, what with the competitive ideals of capitalism, I don't think the whole system is designed to be generous.

And incidentally, everything you've mentioned about leaving the country, imposing ideas on others, going against the Constitution, etc. - none of it is based on law.  While our country has had the system its had in place for 200 years, there's really no reason it couldn't change.  Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything about what kind of economic system the nation should have.  

Where does it say that's the job of our government?

they don't have to be directly out of the Constitution as long as they don't conflict with it.  Don't you remember the "necessary and proper" clause?  The job of government in the United States is whatever the people want it to be.  

But the people haven't voted for it to be, and even then, it's not a given, since there are protections against things like discrimination (look at the civil rights acts).  All you are talking about is discriminating against a group of people with more money.

And incidentally, everything you've mentioned about leaving the country, imposing ideas on others, going against the Constitution, etc. - none of it is based on law.  While our country has had the system its had in place for 200 years, there's really no reason it couldn't change.  Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything about what kind of economic system the nation should have.

Problem is, socialism is more then just an economic system.  

And what I've argued is not that it "couldn't change" but that it SHOULDN'T change.  That there are places where you can go to fit those ideals, and that some people (many people) want to come here for these ideals.  And that it's good to have that opportunity!  This nation was founded to get away from some of the oppressive ideals you guys have, and others.  And we should celebrate the fact that nations are different, and let people live where they best fit and want to be.  You haven't shown anything wrong with that idea yet.

A couple notes - I'm arguing a hypothetical system.  The tax code as it is sucks; you're completely right about too many loopholes and such.  In my hypothetical tax code, the mega rich would be the ones getting the huge percentages - not the people such as you currently being "shafted".  

A couple notes - this debate was about HR2 and I added HR25, not hypothetical systems, but actual bills in congress.  I've also noted that the people saying the current cuts are bad because of the rich, are not taking into account those of us who are rich, and are the ones really getting shafted by the current system.  And I've asked people to address that, yet all I hear is CEO's and the mega-wealthy.

Also, I don't want to punish the rich.  They wouldn't lose money, they'd just earn it a little slower.  If you're making $10 million a year, it's not a "punishment" to "only" make $5 million, when everyone else is making far less than that.  

Yes, it is.  You aren't treating them fairly, you are discriminating against them.  And I believe that Tasty actually said he wanted to "punish" them.  So that's where it was directed to.

As for consumption tax, it depends what you're taxing.  If you're taxing purchases that everyone makes, it is a flat tax.  Basic sales tax takes the same percentage away from everyone.  In a sense, it's even regressive.  A penniless woman buying a tomato at the grocery store feels the sales tax much harder than you or I would.  Doesn't that seem a little pointless?  I don't see any point to any consumption taxes except for luxury taxes and the like, which again attempt to even the wealth gap.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, do you even bother to read?  The necessities of life wouldn't be taxed.  Even today, you don't have a sales tax on food, do you?  Not in any state I've been to with a sales tax (beer and alcohol being an exception to that).  Read what I've already posted on it, or read HR25, but don't argue about shit that was pointed out pages ago.  The only thing pointless is trying to explain it to someone that doesn't take the time to read the explanations.

No penalty - they're still rich as hell, and the middle class and poverty level would be constantly improving.  

Actually, I believe it is a penalty, and under a consumption tax, the lower classes have the opportunity to improve if that is their goal (savings aren't taxed).  But I've fucking said that a few times already.

Also, you seem really set that graduated taxes are unfair, but look at this way.  You seem justifiably proud that you have succeeded in moving from the poverty level to middle class.  I have no idea what the actual figures are, but I'd guess that's an annual income increase of at most $100,000.  Whatever the number is, it's plenty of money to lead a comfortable life.  It's an accomplishment.

Actually, as I've already said a couple times, I fall into the government's "RICH" area.  And it's an increase of a good bit over 100k, not at most.  But all that has to do with is that I'm one of the guys really getting screwed by the current tax system.  I don't have enough to hide my income well, and I make enough that the government puts me up there in the high ass brackets.  Like I've said, yes, I want the cut because the cut is going to people like me, not the fucking mega-rich.

However, tell me why a rich person, no matter how hard they worked to get their money (or if they didn't) should have the opportunity to make income leaps even greater than what you've accomplished your whole life - year after year after year?  Just because they have more money gives them a right to earn more?  Why not limit them to the same opportunities as the rest - by taxing more of their income.  

Who's limited?  You made a huge assumption there, that we are limited, and we aren't.  I've accomplished an 840% increase in my yearly income in the past 15 years.  Only thing holding me back is the unfair tax system.  And I'm not alone, not special.  Many of my college friends make more then I do.  We got out of school, paid our dues and succeeded.  Even more, some dumbasses that work in the plants (UAW scum) make more then I do without even paying those dues, never going to college, no student loans, and made more at 18 then I did at 22 with a degree in hand.  They can make it too.  You see, I'm a firm believer that the average person can make it big, if they apply themselves.  There are the extreme poor in this country.  Those too poor for even a good, basic education, and those are people I think we should HELP.  But I think we can do that in ways that don't punish the people that were successful.

There's no reason the tax code couldn't be progressive enough to improve society.

And, tell me why you and Tasty and Bondo have referred to a consumption tax as regressive?  Tell me why, done right (and I think HR25 is pretty close, though not perfect) a consumption tax isn't progressive?  Because you are throwing that term around like a political party hammer, a catch phrase.  Progressive doesn't mean screw the rich, it just means forward thinking.


Now, go back, read about consumption tax, and tell me what isn't progressive about it.  Tell me how it doesn't help the poor move up, and tell me how it doesn't solve the many problems that exist today.  Tell me why it's a bad idea over what's in place now.  Because it isn't a theory, it's a bill.  Need sources, don't want to take my word for it, just ask.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, I was sent by Canadian Immigration the forms for both study and work permits.  What I was saying was directly from the study permit thing (although I may have missed that it only applied to Quebec but I don't think I did).

As for who buys a house...well, if the property is increasing in value it is smart.  My brother bought a condo in Boulder while he was going...he stayed in it for three years and made 90k profit.  That paid the down payment for his real house that he is in now.

If my dad doesn't get a job soon, he wouldn't even have enough money to have in a bank to secure my study visa, and my brother who is doing well enough doesn't really have excessive amounts of saved money.  Getting married isn't cheap you know.

About scholarships.  I e-mailed the scholarship person at the university and looked through multiple pages of stuff, and all the scholarships I saw at UVIC were for BC/Canadians only.  It was a big fuck you to Americans in that respect.

On to the general stuff, I don't think a sales tax is regressive, I just think progressive is a good thing and thus don't think a flat tax is appropriate unless we fix the income disparity.

[jn.loudnotes]

Bucc, it all depends on where you draw the line.  I don't know exactly where the brackets fall right now, or whether that's the best place they can be - but I'd imagine some thought went into making them.

And what I'm suggesting is, as you said yourself, you've already made it big.  What exactly are the taxes holding you back from?  Becoming mega-rich?  If you've applied yourself this far, what's to prevent you from earning money at the same rate?  You won't grow percentage-wise as much. . .if in your lifetime your 840% only became 1000%, you'd still have made a large amount of money.  See, if you're already considered rich by society/the government, it seems awfully greedy for you to say you're being unfairly treated because you can't make money fast enough!

Again, I don't think a system that prevents the rich from getting increasingly richer faster than the rest of society discriminates against them, since they deserve the same opportunities as everyone else.  While there could be more incentives for people such as yourself who've worked their way up, an everyday rich or mega-rich person shouldn't deserve even more money just because they have some to begin with.  From my perspective, it's the flat or regressive taxation that discriminates against the poor.  Higher tax brackets are fair for everyone if applied correctly, as they give people a reasonably equal earning potential, if they apply themselves as you've suggested.

The reason I came up with the 100,000 figure is that I figured you were in the upper middle class.  Since you're apparently rich enough to be in the highest tax bracket, either the bracket's wrong, or there's no reason for you to complain.  So, you asked me to address it, and in the perspective of the lower and middle classes, there's really no difference between someone like you and the mega-rich.

Also, I was speaking hypothetically, not about the current bills.  The current bills may make people like you less shafted, if in fact you are, but they're still bad for the poor people which get relatively little.  I for one don't buy the "good for the economy" rubbish, since people are going to save their money when the economy's bad, not spend it - and with the loss of funds, the government inevitably will cut services that people need.  Just so you can feel a little less shafted and have a quicker time at making your first million.

Incidentally, decent guess but I'm not what I'd consider wealthy.  My father's law firm consists of him  and one paralegal - it only does small civil practice.  So, I can give you the perspective of a middle middle-class member - but if I someday manage to be rich, I won't mind giving back and playing fair.

Also, I would wager you've never been to North Carolina, since we have a 2% tax on groceries, I believe, not to mention the regular 6.5% sales tax on consumer goods and a 7% tax on prepared food.  2% on every tomato can hardly be considered fair, but the state is so impoverished right now that there's no way that will change.  Disgustingly, all the budget shortfalls could be solved by raising the tobacco tax, which is one of the lowest in the country, or adopting a state lottery - which keeps failing in our General Assembly because the people here are all Puritans.

[Mr. Lothario]

     One of the principles of supply-side economics is that if you lower taxes, people will see a rise in their perceived incomes, and thus will feel as though they can afford to spend more, and so they will spend more. That makes perfect sense to me, since I've never known even a single person who didn't feel constrained by their income. The more you get, the more you spend. It is a tiny minority of people who have the self-control or ascetic streak to keep their spending down and simply accumulate money (saving for an eventual purchase counts as spending, to my mind) for no purpose.

     A federal sales tax which replaces the income tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, etc. (as well as the whole tumor-like mass that is the the I.R.S. and the tax code and the ancillary industries that support the current tax system) would act as a perceived cut in taxation and therefore a perceived rise in income (actually, if the income tax, etc. were done away with, the majority of people would perceive a dramatic rise in income). This would cause increased spending, which is good for the economy.

     However, even if a federal sales tax were introduced and none of that happened, the savings realized by cutting the I.R.S. would be significant. If the government IS going to redistribute tax wealth to help the poor (something I think that the gov't is really not suited for, but that's an entirely different topic), isn't it better if as little of the tax revenue as possible is spent on supporting the gov't itself?

     And Loud, in response to your last post, you've got to realize that increasing income is the fundamental goal of the American Dream. The American Dream is centered around having things and money. The immigrants who swarmed New York in years and decades past were coming here for a variety of reasons, but one that was shared by many was the desire to improve on their lot through hard work, becoming as wealthy as they were willing to work for. People becoming rich, or even becoming richer, is not harmful. Excepting parasites such as lawyers and distributors and their ilk, most workers in America are producing value, a.k.a. "real wealth." The increase of real wealth is an observable phenomenon, and it is the reason that being rich is not evil: most of the rich (there are exceptions, of course) are not simply stealing money from people, leaving the people poorer without any gain. Most rich people got rich by providing something to other people, whether it be a software program, clothing, or their time and expertise. In other words, in most cases, the wealthy's wealth was earned in a fair exchange. This means that a dollar in the pocket of, say, Steve Jobs, does not mean that there is some poor person who has a dollar less. There is plenty to go around, and there is plenty to support a wide disparity in income.

     Once again, I'll reiterate the main thrust of any argument against punishing the rich for their success: this is America. If you want to be rich, by god, go out and become rich! You can, and nobody is stopping you. If you're willing to work hard enough for it, you can be a multimillionare too. Anybody can. Capitalism IS equal: everyone has the same chance to improve themselves and their lot. But don't expect me to feel bad or responsible for people who can but don't.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Capitalism IS equal: everyone has the same chance to improve themselves and their lot.

You don't actually believe that do you?

Lets see, first off those that are poor have much longer odds (less of a chance) to be rich because likely their district is worse and thus they get a worse education, they are less likely to go to college.  By being less educated they are less able to take higher status jobs that pay more.

Not only does being poor lower your odds, but the already rich tend to help each other out so the chances are already biased in favor of the rich and their children.

The next problem is capital.  Someone with money can get loaned money in order to create a new buisness or use an idea and make more money.  A poor person lacks the ability to generate capital in order to be entreprenuial.

Sorry, but capitalism isn't really an equal chance for everyone to become rich.  Perhaps it doesn't outright prevent the poor from getting rich, but the rich have a much greater shot at becoming richer.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bondo,

1) that quote is right from Canadian Immigration.  So I'm guessing you skimmed the form.

2) you are taking my suggestions only literally it seems, and missing the larger point.  There are ways if you look for them.  

3) 90k profit in 3 years isn't the norm, especially in a college town.  And which is more important, getting the education, or making a profit on something while doing it?  

Loudnotes,

Until you go fucking back, read about consumption taxes and address them after your last bullshit, you aren't worth responding to.

Loth,

Right on!

Bondo again,

Attitudes like that are probably a big reason that so many people don't succeed.  This is much like your going to school in Canada.  The poor need to apply themselves and look for opportunities to get ahead, it's not going to be handed to them.  You talk about loans, but what about Venture Capital?  Look at all the college students that got rich off the .com boom.  Where did they get all that money in college or right out of it?  From venture capital groups in many cases.  All they care about is that you have a good idea and solid plan.  That's just one of many avenues that aren't biased towards the rich, want more?  

I know plenty of poor kids that went to college on financial aid programs.  They managed to get in despite their lack of money and worse education (some had to go to community college first).  They made it though because of their attitude.  They knew they could, and they did it.  Both public and private grants were taken advantage of.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

3) 90k profit in 3 years isn't the norm, especially in a college town.  And which is more important, getting the education, or making a profit on something while doing it?  

No kidding, this is Boulder we are talking about.  I wouldn't expect to make a huge profit exactly, just to have a decent place to live and since I'd be staying there for probably 6 years (since if I had been buying a place she would move in when she came to college as well).  Really for long term, buying makes sense, especially since housing is quite affordable in Canada outside the down payment requirement.

Anyway, I do get the general point you are making...it didn't help that I was somewhat disappointed in the school, otherwise I'd probably be more motivated to find a way to make it work.

[jn.loudnotes]

Loth, I was talking about what money people actually have, not what they think they have.  If the people are that gullible, why not just lie to them and put in a system that benefits only those who are in on the joke?

Yes people react to perceived income, but if, for example, my bank account balance is $300 below normal because the economy is so bad, I'd probably save the $300 Bush sent me in a tax cut, not go rush to buy a new VCR.

And I've said over and over, I don't want to punish the rich, or stop the American dream.  I'm just trying to curb exponential growth.  A hard-working immigrant can save and live the dream by watching his money grow at whatever the interest rate is, say 2%.  That means his money will double in 35 years (Rule of 70), and if he started with, say, $1000, he's gotten a whopping $2000 for his life's work.  (Purely hypothetical example that ignores a lot, but read on)  Now, a rich person, who has $100,000 to start with, will also double their money at that rate in the same time.

However, the rich person gains $99,000 more from their efforts.  That's what seems unfair to me, and a graduated tax system corrects that kind of disparity - in its ideal form.  So, I'm not saying that the rich person is taking away money from the poor, they just have an unfair advantage.  Once you reach a certain level of wealth, there's no need to maintain that kind of advantage. . .you could still make money, just more of it would be redistributed because you don't need it.  Nevertheless, you still get to accumluate as much as you "dream".


Bucc, if you choose not to address my points, that's your problem.  I mentioned what I thought of consumption taxes, and if you don't want to rebut my other rebuttals, then I guess there's nothing further for us to "fucking" debate here.

[Ace]

I've never understood the people who say that the poor are so fucking oppressed. M? great-grandfather retired independently wealthy after coming over from Italy on NOTHING. My father does better than you all can imagine after putting himself through a private college (Stanford) ON HIS OWN because he had the desire. I say fuck welface, fuck handouts, do what you can with your abilities. If you got it, you do it. If you don't got it, you aren't gonna do it. I have no sympathy for those who cry about their situation. This is America and you can do what you want with it.

For the record, before you starting bitching at me, I am going to USC on a partial scholarship, but would be going to UCSD or UCSB on a full scholarship otherwise.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, if you choose not to address my points, that's your problem.  I mentioned what I thought of consumption taxes, and if you don't want to rebut my other rebuttals, then I guess there's nothing further for us to "fucking" debate here.

Fuck off asshole, you are the one that enters a debate half way through and doesn't bother to show the respect to read back, and then bitch at me about something that's already been discussed.  You little shit.  

Bondo, if you got my point, you really should have said so.  It would save some useless posts out of both of us.  

[Mr. Lothario]

I'm just trying to curb exponential growth.  A hard-working immigrant can save and live the dream by watching his money grow at whatever the interest rate is, say 2%...he's gotten a whopping $2000 for his life's work....Now, a rich person....gains $99,000 more from their efforts.  That's what seems unfair to me...the rich person...[has] an unfair advantage.

     One of my points was that in a capitalist system, effort creates wealth. If your hypothetical poor person is willing to stick $1000 in the bank and then spend the next 35 years doing nothing but waiting on interest, he deserves to be poor. A poor person who spent those 35 years working hard and improving himself would very likely wind up quite well-off, if not rich. Being rich means that you spent time, energy and effort on accumulating money and/or getting yourself to a point where your income makes you rich. Yes, yes, there are exceptions *coughDubyacough*, but I seem to recall reading somewhere a while back that the vast majority of the millionaires and multimillionaires today are first-generation rich: that is, THEY made the money. To reiterate: America is still capitalist enough that people can and do become rich quite often. It requires work. Being rich does not directly harm the poor, and if I worked my way to wealth, I'm not gonna be real enthusiastic about my hard-earned money being taken away to give to people who can do the same thing I did but who don't.

Once you reach a certain level of wealth, there's no need to maintain that kind of advantage. . .you could still make money, just more of it would be redistributed because you don't need it.  Nevertheless, you still get to accumluate as much as you "dream".

     Who are you to say that somebody doesn't need their money? Should we remove food from well-stocked refrigerators and pantries as well? "You've got more than enough, we'll relieve you of the excess that you don't need." Even if they don't need it, that's their decision. The government's proper role is not welfare nanny.

[jn.loudnotes]

I'm not saying that they should be relieved of the excess, I just think it's reasonable for them to haver a harder time making more money after a certain point.

What I think most of you are missing is that Ace's great-grandfather, Buccaneer himself, and every first-generation millionaire around probably wouldn't have been able to do it if we didn't have the tax system we have.  If there were flat, consumption, or regressive taxes, the poor wouldn't have the same kind of opportunities, whereas those who are already rich would have more as illustrated by my interest example.  That example of course leaves out many factors, it just tries to show the idea that the rich start out ahead of the game.

Perhaps another idea for taxation would depend on your generational wealth.  If you're a self-made millionaire, perhaps you shouldn't have to pay taxes at all.  However, those with inherited wealth would have the higher brackets I described, because they're starting out ahead in life.  Also, this would encourage philanthropy from the rich, since people would give away a lot of money to prevent their kids from inheriting too much, which is a good idea anyway.

Even that wouldn't be necessary though, since a higher tax bracket once you're rich still doesn't take away your money at all.  You still have a huge wealth base at that point.  Since you've got that wealth, which you may have earned yourself, the tax bracket just decreases your earnings.  You keep the money you have - again, you just don't get to make the same % increase in your wealth, since that would be an exponentially ever-increasing amount on dollars.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I just love it when an ignorant fool keeps talking about consumption tax being bad for the poor, all because his sanctimonious little ass can't read up about it.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bondo, if you got my point, you really should have said so.  It would save some useless posts out of both of us.  

I don't think they were useless, I now perhaps know a bit more about the process or things I need to look into when I move.

[jn.loudnotes]

Bucc, any ignorant fool could tell you that consumption taxes are bad for the poor, and your maintaining that they're good is blantantly false.  If by reading up, you mean studying your bullshit, I'm not going to waste my time.  It's not as if I'm the only person in the world that recognizes that regressive taxes are bad for the impoverished.  I know what I'm talking about and I suggest you read up yourself before you get arrogant and huffy again.  If you choose not to respond to my points because you disagree with that, that's your issue.

As I've said, the only consumption tax that benefits the poor is the luxury tax, or other taxation of things only rich people buy.

So, address me if you like, otherwise don't complain that I don't know what I'm talking about if you don't have anything to back yourself up.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, any ignorant fool could tell you that consumption taxes are bad for the poor, and your maintaining that they're good is blantantly false.  

Yeah asshole, problem is, I backed my words up with cases and points, not just bullshit like you.

It's not as if I'm the only person in the world that recognizes that regressive taxes are bad for the impoverished.  

No, you are just another asshole that never answered why you think they are regressive and not progressive.  Just another bullshit slinger that can't actually think his way out of it, so ignores it.

I know what I'm talking about and I suggest you read up yourself before you get arrogant and huffy again.  

No, you don't know what you are talking about.  If you did, you could back up such lofty claims.

If you choose not to respond to my points because you disagree with that, that's your issue.

I choose not to have to repeat myself for the fourth fucking time because some child is too fucking ignorant to go back and either read my posts on how they handle the issues you brought up (which was already discussed twice) or go back and read HR25 (which I also brought up).  I choose not to indulge such a spoiled little child, that is correct.

As I've said, the only consumption tax that benefits the poor is the luxury tax, or other taxation of things only rich people buy.

Said it, but haven't brought up anything to fucking support it, asshole.

So, address me if you like, otherwise don't complain that I don't know what I'm talking about if you don't have anything to back yourself up.

Already backed some of it up, but someone is too fucking childish to read.  Wonder who in the hell that could be.  Some Loudass.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Hmmm well its safe to say that those cursewords I see dont sway my opinion on the matter however heres my opinion

http://nytimes.com/2003/06/01/national/01TAX.html

If it says some crap about signing in dont worry I will explain. 8 million low income tax payers do not benefit from the tax plan. Republicans in the senate individually agree that that needs to be changed but they arent going to propose something to say it. Secondly those making barely minimum wage whos annual income is 10,000- 26,000 and who have kids will not recieve the $400 dollars per child benefit that others will.  

Then theres the argument of how democrats didnt want the thing so large and now they claim its not expansive enough. Well we didnt want it large to the rich as it was but we did want it to cover everybody, I think thats fair dont you?

Well Bucc and Loudnotes dont bother cussing me out I wont check this site for a while...What universities did you guys go to?

[jn.loudnotes]

Zait - I don't have any need to curse at you, whether I agree with you or not.  

<sarcasm>However, since I'm always right, I really don't need to waste my time reading your article.  Anyway, you can't possibly have anything valid to say - since Bucc addressed your points at some point before this post.  Why didn't you respond to him?</sarcasm>

By the way - nytimes wants me to register to read the article. . .I'll do that later.

[Mr. Lothario]

     Please explain how a proposed tax system in which only nonessential purchases are taxed is detrimental to the poor. Under the proposed consumption tax we are discussing, a hypothetical poverty-level worker who has a hypothetical job at McDonald's gets all of their income, tax-free. They keep all of their hypothetical money (well, they'll probably be taxed by the city/county/state, but from the federal perspective, their money won't be touched) up until they buy something other than food. At the grocery store, they're paying no tax. Even if they're buying other stuff, they can avoid being taxed, as long as they're buying second-hand goods. A used car is not taxed. A sofa from a thrift shop is not taxed. In other words, this hypothetical poverty-stricken, minimum-wage makin' worker will be able to keep a much greater chunk of their income, and so they will be able to save their money.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Hehe, I love second hand.  I sell lots of stuff...about $1800 over the past three years...no tax on it.  And you can usually buy things for half price and no sales tax.  Who cares if it isn't pristine or prompt.