Bush Tax breaks for the "rich"

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Warren Buffet has explained this phenomenon in detail. The money he saves through reduced taxes goes into a savings account; the money the McDonald's counter guy saves goes into the local automotive repair place and the local hardware store.

Warren Buffet! WTF does HE know about making money?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>The hope that it fixes spending is when the people get upset and
>stop buying things above the minimum in order to show their displeasure.

How would that help anything? They'd just up the minimum tax. If they couldn't do that, they'd just borrow more money from China. I don't see that as any better.

dork - that's why I noted it the "hope" of it. And that it would require controlling "spending" against a balanced budget.

As far as them upping the minimum tax rate? Yup. Also, they'll keep upping the initial (COL) rebate to 'buy' votes and drive the tax burden to the top spenders. Very analogous to what happens now.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[joedirt 0]

Yeah these guys are obviously racists since they don't like the government collecting their money and deciding how to distribute it. Probably hate children too...don't want them to have health care. Tell it to them sister.

[Amazon 7]

You just dont like WHO they are giving it to.....as long as the missing teeth trailer trash NASCAR fans get it.. its all good with yall.


TO you Govermental welfare iis fine...how much is the budget for waste in Iraq??

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Quote

Warren Buffet has explained this phenomenon in detail. The money he saves through reduced taxes goes into a savings account; the money the McDonald's counter guy saves goes into the local automotive repair place and the local hardware store.

Warren Buffet! WTF does HE know about making money?

Wow. So you guys just hit the nail right on the head. The "rich" will spend some of it, and invest the rest back into the economy. That creates jobs, more income for the "poor" and more revenue, and so on.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Warren Buffet has explained this phenomenon in detail. The money he saves through reduced taxes goes into a savings account; the money the McDonald's counter guy saves goes into the local automotive repair place and the local hardware store.

Warren Buffet! WTF does HE know about making money?

Wow. So you guys just hit the nail right on the head. The "rich" will spend some of it, and invest the rest back into the economy. That creates jobs, more income for the "poor" and more revenue, and so on.

RIGHT, The economy is in fine shape thanks to Bush's tax cuts. The $US is riding high. Bush's "no recession" speech was off the wall. The Fed is cutting rates for no good reason. Warren Buffet is a clueless idiot who made $67 Billion by pure luck because he surely doesn't know as much as you do about economics. You nailed it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Hmmm - seems I've heard that myth before. Every time the Republicans cut taxes, we end up with record setting deficits a couple of years later. Eventually China will get fed up with lending us money because we won't pay our own way.

Actually, it's not a myth. Lower taxes result in higher revenue, because of the positive effects on the economy. Revenue has been at an all time high, but unfortunately, so has spending. Yes, the war is expensive, but so are 2 million rubbers a day shipped to Africa, and thousands of other stupid vote buying schemes. But, we're missing the point.

THe FairTax is actually being sponsored by both Dems and Republicans. It's a way to create revenue without penalizing hard work/smart work/entrepreneurial talent.

I have two questions for the FairTax proponents:

1) Assuming that we have a fixed amount of revenue that has to be raised by taxes, who exactly would be better off and who would be worse of by switching to FairTax? Taxes are a zero-sum framework. There's no way for everyone to benefit.

2) Since the heart of the FairTax is to tax people on consumption and spending, won't that be the ultimate de-stimulus for the economy?

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

RIGHT, The economy is in fine shape thanks to Bush's tax cuts. The $US is riding high. Bush's "no recession" speech was off the wall. The Fed is cutting rates for no good reason. Warren Buffet is a clueless idiot who made $67 Billion by pure luck because he surely doesn't know as much as you do about economics. You nailed it.

Who said WB was an idiot? He makes money off of capitalism, not socialism. He's a very smart man, and he creates wealth for a lot of people by investing and creating jobs. The economy runs in cycles, and the more the feds meddle with it, the worse it gets. This particular downturn has many causes, among them are loose loan policies by many financial institutions and overbuilding which created a large housing inventory.

Here again, I abhor the income tax altogether. Have I mentioned the FairTax? You said it was voodoo economics - I assume you HAVE read the bill and have some specific objections?

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

RIGHT, The economy is in fine shape thanks to Bush's tax cuts. The $US is riding high. Bush's "no recession" speech was off the wall. The Fed is cutting rates for no good reason. Warren Buffet is a clueless idiot who made $67 Billion by pure luck because he surely doesn't know as much as you do about economics. You nailed it.

Who said WB was an idiot? He makes money off of capitalism, not socialism. He's a very smart man, and he creates wealth for a lot of people by investing and creating jobs. The economy runs in cycles, and the more the feds meddle with it, the worse it gets. This particular downturn has many causes, among them are loose loan policies by many financial institutions and overbuilding which created a large housing inventory.

Here again, I abhor the income tax altogether. Have I mentioned the FairTax? You said it was voodoo economics - I assume you HAVE read the bill and have some specific objections?

I await your answers to Likearock. I may have additional questions then.

Right now I view FairTax as naive in the extreme.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,118]

>The "rich" will spend some of it . . .

No. That's the point. Warren Buffet won't spend it. (He has said this, and I'm going to take his word for what he will do over yours.) He'll put it in the bank, where it will have an indirect effect on the economy.

If you give the same tax break to someone making $40K a year, that money will go right back into the economy, having a direct effect on the economy.

Which is why, if you want to raise taxes and not affect the economy, in general it's better to raise taxes on the rich than to raise taxes on the poor.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

I have two questions for the FairTax proponents:

1) Assuming that we have a fixed amount of revenue that has to be raised by taxes, who exactly would be better off and who would be worse of by switching to FairTax? Taxes are a zero-sum framework. There's no way for everyone to benefit.

2) Since the heart of the FairTax is to tax people on consumption and spending, won't that be the ultimate de-stimulus for the economy?

AH! Thank you rock! You rock!

1) It's a zero sum game only if you assume no economic growth as a result of the switch. With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. Hidden taxes are history, Americans are able to save more, and businesses invest more. Capital formation, the real source of job creation and innovation, is facilitated. Gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone. The FairTax as proposed raises the economy’s capital stock by 42 percent, its labor supply by 4 percent, its output by 12 percent, and its real wage rate by 8 percent.

As U.S. companies and individuals repatriate, on a tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy.

Some will do better than others, thats capitalism, but a rising tide lifts all ships.

Oh, and another thing, we spend about 250 billion annually ($900 for every man, woman and child) to comply with the current tax code. That money is wasted - there's no productivity in it. Once the IRS is abolished, everyone benefits from that.

2) That's a very good question, best answered by reading some of the research papers, but here's the summary: because every corporation has to pay income and payroll taxes at every level of production, everything you buy already has embedded tax cost. The economists have figured that to be 22%. It is replaced by the sales tax of 23%, but you get to keep all your paycheck. All of it. So, the taxes are already there, and consumers are still consuming.

Hope that helps.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

I have two questions for the FairTax proponents:

1) Assuming that we have a fixed amount of revenue that has to be raised by taxes, who exactly would be better off and who would be worse of by switching to FairTax? Taxes are a zero-sum framework. There's no way for everyone to benefit.

2) Since the heart of the FairTax is to tax people on consumption and spending, won't that be the ultimate de-stimulus for the economy?

AH! Thank you rock! You rock!

1) It's a zero sum game only if you assume no economic growth as a result of the switch. With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. .

etc. cut and pasted directly from the Fairtax.org web site.

Oh spare us the web site plagiarism. We can all Google.

That is just ridiculous, I can't believe ANYONE would fall for it.**

** edited to add: yes I can believe people would fall for it. The exact same people that fell for Voodoo Economics, who believed Bush about Iraq's WMD capabilities, and who believed Bush when he said "our deficit will be small and short lived".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

I have two questions for the FairTax proponents:

1) Assuming that we have a fixed amount of revenue that has to be raised by taxes, who exactly would be better off and who would be worse of by switching to FairTax? Taxes are a zero-sum framework. There's no way for everyone to benefit.

2) Since the heart of the FairTax is to tax people on consumption and spending, won't that be the ultimate de-stimulus for the economy?

AH! Thank you rock! You rock!

1) It's a zero sum game only if you assume no economic growth as a result of the switch.

I don't. And no responsible economist would assume such a result. I think it's been abundantly evident over the recent past that tax policy has at best a limited effect on economic growth.

So I repeat the question, assuming that we have a fixed amount of revenue that has to be raised by taxes, and assuming that our rate of growth with be more or less comparable to past experience, who exactly would be better off and who would be worse of by switching to FairTax?

Quote

2) That's a very good question, best answered by reading some of the research papers, but here's the summary: because every corporation has to pay income and payroll taxes at every level of production, everything you buy already has embedded tax cost. The economists have figured that to be 22%. It is replaced by the sales tax of 23%, but you get to keep all your paycheck. All of it. So, the taxes are already there, and consumers are still consuming.

The difference is people are not taxed on what they buy now, at least not on the level they would have to be for the FairTax to support a multi-trillion dollar federal budget. No matter how you cut it, raising taxes on consumption will act as a disincentive to consumption and will work directly against stimulating the economy.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>The "rich" will spend some of it . . .

No. That's the point. Warren Buffet won't spend it. (He has said this, and I'm going to take his word for what he will do over yours.) He'll put it in the bank, where it will have an indirect effect on the economy.

If you give the same tax break to someone making $40K a year, that money will go right back into the economy, having a direct effect on the economy.

Which is why, if you want to raise taxes and not affect the economy, in general it's better to raise taxes on the rich than to raise taxes on the poor.

It seems misplaced to use the examples of the person making 60B (a very rare person who earns more than he can possibly spend and actually sees that) and someone making 40k, who is paying minimal taxes. Sure that person benefits from a cut, but pretty soon you're paying him rather than collecting.

This discussion should be framed around what happens with the people in the middle (say CA families at 100k) where a 3% change in the bracket means $3000. How they use or misuse their money has quite an effect on the economy.

The "Fair" Tax is a hoax, but at some point it does seem easier to start over. The current system is getting too messy. The AMT was never meant to be a tax on Californians, but here we are. But we can't just remove it because of the revenue impact. Of course, changing the tax and spending system of the government is like changing an engine in a B2 mid flight.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Warren Buffet! WTF does HE know about making money?

But he is more qualified to talk about tax policy?

(BTW, I suspect he is buying the dollar like there is no tomorrow)

[billvon 3,118]

>It seems misplaced to use the examples of the person making 60B (a
>very rare person who earns more than he can possibly spend and actually
>sees that) and someone making 40k . . .

By that I assume that you agree with me on the basic premise - that changing taxes on people who make more than they can spend affects the economy very little, while changing it on the people making $40K affects it a lot.

>This discussion should be framed around what happens with the people
>in the middle (say CA families at 100k) where a 3% change in the bracket
>means $3000. How they use or misuse their money has quite an effect on >the economy.

Also agreed. However, these people still represent a small fraction of the economy. In California, only 20% of the population makes more than $100K. (per the 2000 census.) If you wanted to have a positive effect on the economy, it makes far more sense to give tax breaks to the 80% who live _below_ the 100K line.

>The current system is getting too messy.

Agreed. But as you say, another tax reform would likely end up just adding another layer of complexity on top of an already Byzantine tax code.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Oh spare us the web site plagiarism. We can all Google.

Well I'm glad you did at least Google it. It was apparent that when you made your "voodoo economics" claim that you didn't know anything about it. I hope you can aproach it more with an open mind. It seems that you are an angry Bush hater, and getting into those arguments is not my bag. I would rather stay positive and try to find solutions.

Billvon, I appreciate your points. I'll just have to disagree with you. Consumer spending impacts the economy now, but investment spending has long term effects.

For those who want solutions, the FairTax is worth a look. Not perfect, but I believe much better than the tax code as it stands.

Peace out!

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[Royd 0]

Quote

On the whole I'd prefer my money to go to buy food for the poor than in outspending the rest of the world combined on weapons.

Why don't you pick out one poor family and support them from now till kingdom come? It wouldn't be long before you started demanding that they get some sort of job training and skills to lift themselves up.

At best, our welfare system should be a stopgap measure, and not some lifestyle to aspire to.

Quote

That is trickle-up to the defense contractors, of course.

You talk like all of these weapon systems are created out of thin air, and four or five guys are going home each night, with more money than they can carry.

How many separate industries and individuals are involved in building a weapon system?

And what is your problem with having the strongest military in the world?

[Lindsey 0]

Billvon, I appreciate your points. I'll just have to disagree with you. Consumer spending impacts the economy now, but investment spending has long term effects.

Trickle-down economics have only helped out the rich folks in the past. The middle classes and the poor only got poorer. How do you suppose it would be different now?

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Royd 0]

Quote

However, that not being good enough, the IRS reports that small business owners are also the biggest tax cheats.

Well now, I'd say that getting something for nothing is a far bigger ripoff, from my perspective.

[Royd 0]

Quote

The difference is people are not taxed on what they buy now, at least not on the level they would have to be for the FairTax to support a multi-trillion dollar federal budget. No matter how you cut it, raising taxes on consumption will act as a disincentive to consumption and will work directly against stimulating the economy.

The problem with any tax system is that someone is going to take a beating.

For some reason, punishing industrious, self motivated people seems to be all the rage. It's like punishing you in school if you strive for excellence, and rewarding you, if you choose to be a dumb ass.

That's the way today's tax system works.

Somewhere, our philosophy got turned on its head.

With the fair tax, illegal aliens and foriegn tourists will be putting a lot of money in the coffers.

As it stands today, a lot of illegal aliens are working under the table, and sending that money out of the country.

And yes, I would gladly pay a larger sales tax just so I wouldn't have to spend two to three weeks,every year, with that 'deer in the headlights' look, waiting for the tax man to ream me out.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

The difference is people are not taxed on what they buy now, at least not on the level they would have to be for the FairTax to support a multi-trillion dollar federal budget. No matter how you cut it, raising taxes on consumption will act as a disincentive to consumption and will work directly against stimulating the economy.

The problem with any tax system is that someone is going to take a beating.

For some reason, punishing industrious, self motivated people seems to be all the rage. It's like punishing you in school if you strive for excellence, and rewarding you, if you choose to be a dumb ass.

If you go from an tax based on income to a tax based on consumption, who do you think would benefit? Wouldn't it be those whose income-to-consumption ratio is highest? Wouldn't that tend to be the richer people? CEOs making 8 figures are probably going to spend a much smaller fraction of their income than someone making 50K. And none of the elaborate rebate/prebate nonsense is going to make a big difference in that basic pattern. The richer you are, the proportionally less you'll have to pay in a consumption-based tax.

You may want to discount the guy making 50k as a dumb ass but there are a lot of them out there, many with families. The "fair" tax gives them the shaft.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

The difference is people are not taxed on what they buy now, at least not on the level they would have to be for the FairTax to support a multi-trillion dollar federal budget. No matter how you cut it, raising taxes on consumption will act as a disincentive to consumption and will work directly against stimulating the economy.

The problem with any tax system is that someone is going to take a beating.

For some reason, punishing industrious, self motivated people seems to be all the rage. It's like punishing you in school if you strive for excellence, and rewarding you, if you choose to be a dumb ass.

Replacing one tax with another while still taking the same amount out of the economy is not removing a "punishment", nor will it affect anything. It's a transparent move to make the rich even richer, while hoodwinking unthinking people into thinking they will be better off. Seems to be working, too.

And as for reducing bureacracy, anyone believing that should take a look at the VAT bureacracy in Europe before trumpeting that as an advantage.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Quote

If you go from an tax based on income to a tax based on consumption, who do you think would benefit? Wouldn't it be those whose income-to-consumption ratio is highest? Wouldn't that tend to be the richer people? CEOs making 8 figures are probably going to spend a much smaller fraction of their income than someone making 50K. And none of the elaborate rebate/prebate nonsense is going to make a big difference in that basic pattern. The richer you are, the proportionally less you'll have to pay in a consumption-based tax.

You may want to discount the guy making 50k as a dumb ass but there are a lot of them out there, many with families. The "fair" tax gives them the shaft.

I don't have a problem with someone who was busted their ass for a good portion of their lives to get a grip on life, getting an advantage.

If you had every penny you earned coming to you at the end of the week, without any penalty, you could choose to save and spend big, or you could spend it on everyday junk. At the end of the day, you don't have the govt. breathing down your neck, and for me, that's the bottom line.

They can't take anything you own, because you don't owe them any taxes.


BTW, I make less than 50k by choice. Once the govt. starts playing the diminishing returns game, I say, 'Screw you.'

[kallend 2,148]

Taxes are not a penalty nor a punishment. You have some very strange ideas.

How exactly do you think that huge military/industrial complex you like so much is to be funded, without taxes?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.