Bush Legacy

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Virtually untaxed?  How would you like to have a $xx million tax bill each year?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I bet you and I are taxed at a higher percentage than they are!!!

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Virtually untaxed?  How would you like to have a $xx million tax bill each year?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would love that...that would mean I was making MILLIONS!!!

[Controlled Chaos]

My whole family are Democrats, if that's what you're implying!

 

Must make for a fun thanksgiving dinner.

 

BUSH SUCKS...please pass the gravy.

BUSH LIED...please pass the potatoes.

BUSH LIKES DYING SOLDIERS...please pass the cranberry sauce.

BUSH ONLY WANTS TO HELP HIS FRIENDS...please pass the stuffing.

BUSH HATES BLACKS...please pass the bread.

BUSH HATES THE POOR. please pass the corn.

BUSH HATES GAYS. please pass the salad.

BUSH HATES THE ENVIRONMENT. please pass the pie.

BUSH IS THE WORST PRES EVER...Can I have some more turkey.

[kapkomet]

I bet you and I are taxed at a higher percentage than they are!!!

Not trying to be a smart ass, but do you know how the tax system really works?

 

It's not perfect, by any means... but I bet you're wrong on the statement above.

[kapkomet]

Must make for a fun thanksgiving dinner.

 

BUSH SUCKS...please pass the gravy.

BUSH LIED...please pass the potatoes.

BUSH LIKES DYING SOLDIERS...please pass the cranberry sauce.

BUSH ONLY WANTS TO HELP HIS FRIENDS...please pass the stuffing.

BUSH HATES BLACKS...please pass the bread.

BUSH HATES THE POOR.  please pass the corn.

BUSH HATES GAYS.  please pass the salad.

BUSH HATES THE ENVIRONMENT.  please pass the pie.

BUSH IS THE WORST PRES EVER...Can I have some more turkey.

LMFAO!

 

[southsider2k5]

Okay then...let's nail the unemployed, the homeless, the disenfranchised, the uninsured, etc.,

 

Let's let the fatcats like Bill Gates, Donald Trump, the Waltons sit in their ivory towers and make billions of dollars virtually untaxed. Let's let Exxon destroy Alaska....

 

So basically you are either saying we need a socialistic government to make everyone equal, or that we need millions of more homeless people on the governments dime instead of being employed by the private sector.

 

Its easy to scream in ideals and generalities, but I am curious what you want to do with all of these new unemployed people after corporations lay them off because of your tax increases, during times of increased costs and decreased spending??? Drop the whole big Jesse Jackson outrage thing and give me some practical solutions.

[southsider2k5]

Not trying to be a smart ass, but do you know how the tax system really works?

 

It's not perfect, by any means... but I bet you're wrong on the statement above.

 

Way wrong. The statistics prove it.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Not trying to be a smart ass, but do you know how the tax system really works?

 

It's not perfect, by any means... but I bet you're wrong on the statement above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe I don't, but, I know we don't have a flat tax rate.

 

In a perfect world, the wealthiest 5% of the population (who control >95% of the country's wealth), should be responsible for >95% of the tax burden.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

So basically you are either saying we need a socialistic government to make everyone equal, or that we need millions of more homeless people on the governments dime instead of being employed by the private sector.

 

Its easy to scream in ideals and generalities, but I am curious what you want to do with all of these new unemployed people after corporations lay them off because of your tax increases, during times of increased costs and decreased spending???  Drop the whole big Jesse Jackson outrage thing and give me some practical solutions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm saying that the tax burden has to be more equitably distributed. If you make $100K per year and pay $35K in taxes, and I make $10 million and pay $3.5 million in taxes, which of us is hurting more? You, having to live on 65K per year? Or me having to "survive" on $6.5 million?

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Must make for a fun thanksgiving dinner.

 

BUSH SUCKS...please pass the gravy.

BUSH LIED...please pass the potatoes.

BUSH LIKES DYING SOLDIERS...please pass the cranberry sauce.

BUSH ONLY WANTS TO HELP HIS FRIENDS...please pass the stuffing.

BUSH HATES BLACKS...please pass the bread.

BUSH HATES THE POOR.  please pass the corn.

BUSH HATES GAYS.  please pass the salad.

BUSH HATES THE ENVIRONMENT.  please pass the pie.

BUSH IS THE WORST PRES EVER...Can I have some more turkey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As opposed to putting on the Rush Limbaugh issued knee pads and chapstick and "blowing Bush"??? I'll take our Thanksgiving, thank you!

[jackie hayes]

Maybe I don't, but, I know we don't have a flat tax rate.

 

In a perfect world, the wealthiest 5% of the population (who control >95% of the country's wealth), should be responsible for >95% of the tax burden.

I'm pretty sure that 95% number is wrong. I believe it's close to 50%, maybe a little more. Exaggeration doesn't help. The tax cuts blew, and without them the deficits would definitely be smaller, but that doesn't mean we should tax the hell out of anyone. And Kyoto is pretty controversial -- a lot of early studies concluded that, yes, it really was just a f***-the-US deal, and not very efficient, either.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

I'm pretty sure that 95% number is wrong.  I believe it's close to 50%, maybe a little more.  Exaggeration doesn't help.  The tax cuts blew, and without them the deficits would definitely be smaller, but that doesn't mean we should tax the hell out of anyone.  And Kyoto is pretty controversial -- a lot of early studies concluded that, yes, it really was just a f***-the-US deal, and not very efficient, either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that the 95% figure is accurate, but that's beside the point. The point is, if you control 50% of the country's wealth, you should be responsible for 50% of it's tax burden, if you control 80%, be responsible for 80%...get it?

[southsider2k5]

Maybe I don't, but, I know we don't have a flat tax rate.

 

In a perfect world, the wealthiest 5% of the population (who control >95% of the country's wealth), should be responsible for >95% of the tax burden.

 

A serious question here, have you done much research into tax burden? The bottom 40% of US tax payers actually have a negative tax rate. Yes you read that right... Because of things like the earned income credit, and other deductions. The top 1% of US tax payers are responsible for something like 50% of US income tax receipts.

 

What you are asking for is pretty much reality today.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Way wrong.  The statistics prove it.

 

[Here comes the 11:45 tangent. . . ]

 

You do not ever "prove" anything with statistics. You support or refute an hypothesis, sometimes to the point of amassing an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence. But you do not "prove."

 

[/There goes the 11:45 tangent. . . ]

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

A serious question here, have you done much research into tax burden?  The bottom 40% of US tax payers actually have a negative tax rate.  Yes you read that right... Because of things like the earned income credit, and other deductions.  The top 1% of US tax payers are responsible for something like 50% of US income tax receipts.

 

What you are asking for is pretty much reality today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But the top 1% control at least 85% of the nation's wealth!!!

[southsider2k5]

But the top 1% control at least 85% of the nation's wealth!!!

 

I'd like to see that figure in print somewhere if you don't mind. IIRC it is more like the top quintile of people that control that much of the wealth.

[jackie hayes]

I believe that the 95% figure is accurate, but that's beside the point. The point is, if you control 50% of the country's wealth, you should be responsible for 50% of it's tax burden, if you control 80%, be responsible for 80%...get it?

Where'd you get the number then? I'm looking at an article in the Journal of Political Economy that tells me that the top 5% control 54% of the wealth.

 

What you're advocating sounds like a flat tax on wealth, and you do NOT want to advocate that. Since housing wealth is a much larger percentage of the total assets of the poor, that will hit the poor very hard. (Fewer liquid assets out of which to pay the tax.)

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Once again, say you and I are both married and have 4 children living at home. You are a CEO of X-Company, "earning" $1 million per year, and I work for X-Company, and I make $50K per year. If we are both in the 33% tax bracket, you net $667K and I net approximately $35K.

 

You therefor live on "Easy Street" and I have to struggle, living paycheck to paycheck. IS THIS FAIR?

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Wealth in America

 

 

 

"If one leaves aside homes and real estate, the top 2% of all families are found to own 54% of all net financial assets (stocks, bonds, pensions funds and so on), the top 10% to own 86%, and the bottom 55% to have zero or negative financial assets."

Lester Thurow, A Surge of Inequality. Scientific American. May, 1987, Vol 256(5):30-37. Pp. 32.

 

 

 

1. Financial Wealth (1989 data)

 

Top 1% of wealth-holders have 48% of all financial wealth

 

Next 19% have 46%

 

Next 80% have 6%

 

Bottom 54% have no net (assets minus debt) financial wealth

 

2. Marketable Wealth

 

("Net Worth:" Financial wealth + housing and consumer durables' residual value)

 

Top 1% have 39%

 

Next 19% have 45%

 

Bottom 80% have 15%

 

3. Income

 

Top 1% have 17%

 

Next 19% have 39%

 

Bottom 80% have 45%

 

4. Distribution of Increases in Marketable and Financial

Wealth Produced during the 1980s

 

A. Financial Wealth Increases

 

Top 1% got 66%

Next 19% got 37%

Bottom 80% got -3%

 

B. Marketable Wealth Increases

 

Top 1% got 62%

Next 19% got 37%

Bottom 80% got 1%

 

5. Distribution of Marketable Wealth Produced during

1962-1981

 

Top 1% got 34%

Next 19% got 48%

Bottom 80% got 18%

 

(Household Wealth Inequality in the United States from

Top Heavy: A Study of the Increasing Inequality in Wealth in America.

Edward N. Wolff, Twentieth Century Fund Report, 1995.)

 

 

These are the most recent figures I have found so far...I'll keep looking.

[Balta1701]

"If one leaves aside homes and real estate"

While I understand the point you're making, I think it's insanity to leave aside homes and real estate when discussing the net worth of the Average American, for the simple reason that for almost every American who has been working to build up capital for years, the single biggest investment they have is actually their home. And furthermore, virtually all of the economic growth of the past few years has been due to increases in the price of people's homes or increases in the debt taken on by people through refinancing of mortgages or second mortgages.

[Balta1701]

I find it amazing that tax revenues received is HIGHER with the Bush tax cuts enacted.  Hmmm.

How exactly can you find that amazing when the population of the nation has grown, the GDP of the nation has grown, and the government has dumped trillions of dollars into the economy in the form of a massive Keynesian stimulus?

[kapkomet]

How exactly can you find that amazing when the population of the nation has grown, the GDP of the nation has grown, and the government has dumped trillions of dollars into the economy in the form of a massive Keynesian stimulus?

It was tongue in cheek.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Not trying to be a smart ass, but do you know how the tax system really works?

 

It's not perfect, by any means... but I bet you're wrong on the statement above.

I just think it is both amazing and unfair that the loopholes so many ultra-rich people and corporations can get through to avoid paying their fair share. They want all the rights, liberties and freedoms that America provides them but do not feel a need to pay for them like the rest of us.

 

If any regular SouthSider Q. Public tried to use a Cayman Islands bank account to avoid taxes, we'd have our ass thrown in prison faster than Gary Glitter would molest an underage Vietnamese girl.

 

Plus it doesn't help things when we've got an overspending Congress...and I could live with that if the spending was on the right things instead of the Alaskan bridge to nowhere costing millions, pay raises for already rich fat cats in Congress and the billions in other pork that undercuts having armored Humvees, body armor etc. for soldiers in the front & for adequately funding domestic social programs like food stamps, etc.

[kapkomet]

I just think it is both amazing and unfair that the loopholes so many ultra-rich people and corporations can get through to avoid paying their fair share.  They want all the rights, liberties and freedoms that America provides them but do not feel a need to pay for them like the rest of us.

 

If any regular SouthSider Q. Public tried to use a Cayman Islands bank account to avoid taxes, we'd have our ass thrown in prison faster than Gary Glitter would molest an underage Vietnamese girl.

 

Plus it doesn't help things when we've got an overspending Congress...and I could live with that if the spending was on the right things instead of the Alaskan bridge to nowhere costing millions, pay raises for already rich fat cats in Congress and the billions in other pork that undercuts having armored Humvees, body armor etc. for soldiers in the front & for adequately funding domestic social programs like food stamps, etc.

Congressional spending is by far and away more at fault then anything tax cuts have "chipped away at" for our deficit right now.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Congressional spending is by far and away more at fault then anything tax cuts have "chipped away at" for our deficit right now.

It isn't just tax cuts I'm pissed about -- it is not closing loopholes in tax law that allow for Cayman Islands bank accounts, etc. etc. to avoid paying their fair share. If any average person tried what most corporations can get away with in regards to paying taxes, our asses would be in prison so damn fast.