Am I the only one who sees something wrong?

[CubsSuck1]

I heard on Fox News Channel that is bush cut back on tax cuts for the rich for one year, we would have saved $90 Billion. Now being only 15 and not too into politics, I can see there is something wrong with that, especially with the national debt and all. Now I know that there are pros, too, such as if the rich had more money they would spend, and economy rises, but with Iraq and all the other issues we face, $90 Billion is a lot.

[cwsox]

I heard on Fox News Channel that is bush cut back on tax cuts for the rich for one year, we would have saved $90 Billion. Now being only 15 and not too into politics, I can see there is something wrong with that, especially with the national debt and all. Now I know that  there are pros, too, such as if the rich had more money they would spend, and economy rises, but with Iraq and all the other issues we face, $90 Billion is a lot.

An A for the wise student in economics, yu are exactly right, and thank for the insightful thinking and sharing it - you are ahead of others older than you in wisdom

[HighHeat45]

stupid question, but, how much money do you have to have to be considered "rich"

[DBAHO]

stupid question, but, how much money do you have to have to be considered "rich"

You earn over a certain amount of money each year, to pay the maximum tax rate, at least that's what it is ova here I think.

[southsider2k5]

I heard on Fox News Channel that is bush cut back on tax cuts for the rich for one year, we would have saved $90 Billion. Now being only 15 and not too into politics, I can see there is something wrong with that, especially with the national debt and all. Now I know that  there are pros, too, such as if the rich had more money they would spend, and economy rises, but with Iraq and all the other issues we face, $90 Billion is a lot.

And of course what you don't realize is that by giving that money to the government, instead of the public sector you are wasting about $9-$14 billion on the ineffeciencies of the government.

[SuperSteve]

I heard on Fox News Channel that is bush cut back on tax cuts for the rich for one year, we would have saved $90 Billion. Now being only 15 and not too into politics, I can see there is something wrong with that, especially with the national debt and all. Now I know that  there are pros, too, such as if the rich had more money they would spend, and economy rises, but with Iraq and all the other issues we face, $90 Billion is a lot.

I am sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I think it is just the way it is written.

[witesoxfan]

I am sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I think it is just the way it is written.

It makes no sense to me because it is way over my head and I just don't understand this yet.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

stupid question, but, how much money do you have to have to be considered "rich"

If you are above the federal poverty line the left will consider you "rich".

[LowerCaseRepublican]

If you are above the federal poverty line the left will consider you "rich".

The Republicans pride themselves on fiscal responsibility. Why then have they been so fiscally irresponsible with massive deficits during their terms in office? Many right wingers will label Democrats as "tax and spend"...My question is how is that any different than spending, spending, spending and having to pay a massive deficit later?

 

Yes, the argument can be made that there are those that milk the nanny state for all they can but our biggest fiscal spending goes to defense (vastly disproportionately in the FY 04 budget with 399 billion compared to about 60 billion for the next item). We spend .01% of the budget on foreign aid yet most people think that is the #1 spending measure. In a recent poll, it was found that was true followed up by welfare being the #2 spending when it's totally not. Unnecessary defense spending (citing cases like Congress offering to buy the Air Force new refueling planes and other items...Air Force said they didn't need them and had enough; Congress purchased the items anyway etc.) occurs a lot and there is a lot of bloat that could be cut out. The vast majority of your money in taxes doesn't go to welfare queens but rather to military largesse at the expense of education etc. Taking 15% of the Pentagon budget could adequately fund all education, Head Start etc. That doesn't compromise, using the buzzword "national security" and creates a nation of educated people. It's quite feasible if we held Congress accountable.

[mmmmmbeeer]

The Republicans pride themselves on fiscal responsibility.  Why then have they been so fiscally irresponsible with massive deficits during their terms in office?  Many right wingers will label Democrats as "tax and spend"...My question is how is that any different than spending, spending, spending and having to pay a massive deficit later? 

 

Yes, the argument can be made that there are those that milk the nanny state for all they can but our biggest fiscal spending goes to defense (vastly disproportionately in the FY 04 budget with 399 billion compared to about 60 billion for the next item).  We spend .01% of the budget on foreign aid yet most people think that is the #1 spending measure.  In a recent poll, it was found that was true followed up by welfare being the #2 spending when it's totally not.  Unnecessary defense spending (citing cases like Congress offering to buy the Air Force new refueling planes and other items...Air Force said they didn't need them and had enough; Congress purchased the items anyway etc.) occurs a lot and there is a lot of bloat that could be cut out. The vast majority of your money in taxes doesn't go to welfare queens but rather to military largesse at the expense of education etc.  Taking 15% of the Pentagon budget could adequately fund all education, Head Start etc.  That doesn't compromise, using the buzzword "national security" and creates a nation of educated people.  It's quite feasible if we held Congress accountable.

Defense spending is currently at 6% of GDP, which historically speaking, is not even close to a high percentage.

 

To the original poster, the problem with the Bush tax cut isn't the cut itself but the irresponsible spending (non-discretionary) that this congress and administration have pushed through. Prescription drug plans are great ideas in countries who are socialist democracies, where tax rates are well over 50% for the majority of the population, but not in a purer capitalist system where taxes are necessarily kept moderate to low to promote investment, business, and spending. For whatever reason Bush and co. decided to pander to the left and have been spending more than Clinton ever did. Also, with the economy struggling the last couple of years, taxable incomes dropped, which means less income for the government. Clinton had a much easier time balancing the budget not because of high taxes, but rather the enormous tax incomes flooding the government coffers.

 

Tax breaks should never be frowned upon. I don't know about you, but I'd like to think I can be more productive with my money than a bloated federal government. The more money I have in my pocket, the better off I am.

[Texsox]

And of course what you don't realize is that by giving that money to the government, instead of the public sector you are wasting about $9-$14 billion on the ineffeciencies of the government.

What evidence to you have that Enron, K-Mart, or Danny's Tavern was or is any more efficient than the US Government? I cannot understand the reasoning that magically the public sector is any more efficient than the public.

 

Look at this. As far as I know I4E is the only Government employee being "efficient" here each day. the rest of us are private sector.

 

And for an excellent discussion on cutting taxes so the government can spend more money Here at Soxtalk

Texsox's #1 Rule of Politics and the Economy

All politicians like to spend money

 

Texsox's #2 Rule

Dems will tell you they have to raise taxes to fund the program

Gop will tell you they can cut your taxes, and spend more money

 

Texsox's #3 Rule

All politicians compromise their ideas and values to live with-in a two party system.

[southsider2k5]

What evidence to you have that Enron, K-Mart, or Danny's Tavern was or is any more efficient than the US Government? I cannot understand the reasoning that magically the public sector is any more efficient than the public.

 

Look at this. As far as I know I4E is the only Government employee being "efficient" here each day. the rest of us are private sector. 

 

And for an excellent discussion on cutting taxes so the government can spend more money Here at Soxtalk

Texsox's #1 Rule of Politics and the Economy

All politicians like to spend money

 

Texsox's #2 Rule

Dems will tell you they have to raise taxes to fund the program

Gop will tell you they can cut your taxes, and spend more money

 

Texsox's #3 Rule

All politicians compromise their ideas and values to live with-in a two party system.

Greed is what makes the economy go. It is called profit incentive. People want to get the most for their money, or they want to make the most return on their money. Those incentives don't exist for the government. Their is no incentive to do the job cheaper, faster, more effeciently, etc. They don't have stockholders to answer to, they don't have ownership worried about profits. And actually there is a disincentive because if it is done cheaper, most likely that department will get cut for the next term. And because government contracts filled by the private sector, the profit incentive is all on keeping costs as high as possible, so that they profit as much as possible. That is how you get $500 hammers.

[mmmmmbeeer]

Greed is what makes the economy go.  It is called profit incentive.  People want to get the most for their money, or they want to make the most return on their money.  Those incentives don't exist for the government.  Their is no incentive to do the job cheaper, faster, more effeciently, etc.  They don't have stockholders to answer to, they don't have ownership worried about profits.  And actually there is a disincentive because if it is done cheaper, most likely that department will get cut for the next term.  And because government contracts filled by the private sector, the profit incentive is all on keeping costs as high as possible, so that they profit as much as possible.  That is how you get $500 hammers.

It's sad that you even had to explain that. I'm astounded by the number of people who have absolutely no problem throwing their money away to our federal government. Can you imagine how quick any private business would go under if they were managed like any government funded program???

 

Newt Gingrich....oh to have him and his contract with America back.

[Controlled Chaos]

How taxes work.....Here it is boys and girls....

 

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.

 

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

 

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language-- a tax cut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

 

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

 

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

 

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, "but," pointing to the tenth man, "he got $7!"

 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, ........ it's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

 

"That's true," shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all! The system exploits the poor!"

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short! IMAGINE THAT !!!

 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest?

 

Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

[kapkomet]

It's sad that you even had to explain that.  I'm astounded by the number of people who have absolutely no problem throwing their money away to our federal government.  Can you imagine how quick any private business would go under if they were managed like any government funded program??? 

 

Newt Gingrich....oh to have him and his contract with America back.

You know why this is? People are inherently lazy. If the government can do it all for them, and take care of them, they don't have any responsibility. *GASP* PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THEIR OWN RETIREMENT... if SOCIAL SECURITY ISN'T THERE. OMG!

 

Naaaah, it's just easier to have the government subsidize us all, Social Security is, after all, a God Given Right. (As are most government entitlements according to most "leftists".)

 

I'm not saying that private industry is perfect, no, it's not, but the government has become so efficient at being inefficient that it's just pure disgusting.

[southsider2k5]

You know why this is?  People are inherently lazy.

Yeah I actually paid some Indian kid 50 cents to type my answer for me...

[Texsox]

Nice story.

 

Here's another version:

 

After the restaurant owner gives them the $20 savings the rich guy explains, Give me the $20 savings and I will by my wife a new car. By me spending this money, instead of you spending that money, it will stimulate the economy and we will all be better off. Any by the way, I need that $80 receipt, this economic lesson makes it a business expense and I'm going to write off the meal.

 

When the others complained, the rich guy got together with his rich friends and hired a lobbyist with their share of the $20. The lobbyist suggested which congressman would be

helpfull in securing the votes to make certain the rich men got the $20. They made the donations, they called their congressman and were put right through because they were big doners, and legislation was passed! The restaurant owner was forced to give the $20 to the rich guy.

 

Unfortunately tax payers don't seem to grasp this.

[Texsox]

Yeah I actually paid some Indian kid 50 cents to type my answer for me...

I paid the kid $1.00 and he wrote a program for me. Now I don't have to type * and * I don't have to keep paying him

[southsider2k5]

I paid the kid $1.00 and he wrote a program for me. Now I don't have to type * and * I don't have to keep paying him 

Yeah but I couldn't spend a dollar when I only have 50 cents

[kapkomet]

Yeah but I couldn't spend a dollar when I only have 50 cents

Yea, because the damn government took it, didn't they???

 

I hate the fact that April 15th is coming up. I'm gonna hate writing that check.

 

I think they should have the elections the third week of April. I bet that things would be DRASTICALLY different if that were the timing of the elections.

[Texsox]

Yeah but I couldn't spend a dollar when I only have 50 cents

I received a loan of $1.25 from the World Bank, leveraged it for a matching grant from the Indian government because it was a high tech project, secured a training grant from the DOL to train the kid, picked up a $.25 tax credit because he was previously unemployed, and finally filed for bankruptcy before I gave him the $1

 

 

Don't you know anything about business?

[kapkomet]

I received a loan of $1.25 from the World Bank, leveraged it for a matching grant from the Indian government because it was a high tech project, secured a training grant from the DOL to train the kid, picked up a $.25 tax credit because he was previously unemployed, and finally filed for bankruptcy before I gave him the $1

 

 

Don't you know anything about business?

But even in bankruptcy you still have to pay taxes.

 

[Texsox]

But even in bankruptcy you still have to pay taxes.

 

I moved the money into an off shore internet "gaming" business.

[Controlled Chaos]

Nice story.

 

Here's another version:

 

After the restaurant owner gives them the $20 savings the rich guy explains, Give me the $20 savings and I will by my wife a new car. By me spending this money, instead of you spending that money, it will stimulate the economy and we will all be better off. Any by the way, I need that $80 receipt, this economic lesson makes it a business expense and I'm going to write off the meal.

 

When the others complained, the rich guy got together with his rich friends and hired a lobbyist with their share of the $20. The lobbyist suggested which congressman would be

helpfull in securing the votes to make certain the rich men got the $20. They made the donations, they called their congressman and were put right through because they were big doners, and legislation was passed! The restaurant owner was forced to give the $20 to the rich guy.

 

Unfortunately tax payers don't seem to grasp this.

nice version...I think most will see which one is fact and which one is twisted.

 

Here's the big bad rich...not too many of them running out and buying their wife a car. My version is reality yours is fictitious.

 

http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publicati...s/brf10-25.pdf..

[Texsox]

nice version...I think most will see which one is fact and which one is twisted.

 

Here's the big bad rich...not too many of them running out and buying their wife a car. My version is reality yours is fictitious.

 

http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publicati...s/brf10-25.pdf..

Fictitious?

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest?

Your version: Rich people leave and stop paying taxes

My version: Rich people stay, contribute to campaigns, lobby congress, and receive tax breaks.

 

So, where are all these rich people moving to? Who is lobbying congress for tax cuts? The guy making $20,000 per year? Who gets access to his congressman?

 

You are right it isn't the rich going out and buying cars with their tax breaks, they already own a car. It is the working por who can buy one.

 

We both agree the wealthies receive the biggest benefit from a tax cut.