TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush's response to Kerry's plan to eliminate tax cuts for the rich

Bush's response to Kerry's plan to eliminate tax cuts for the rich

http://www.dailypress.com/news/loca...dlines-virginia

2 back-to-back quotes of interest:

quote:

Bush criticized Kerry's plan to eliminate the tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 a year, saying that the "the rich in America happen to be the small business owners" who put people to work.

I wondered about that until I read this:

quote:

But does Kerry want to raise taxes on small businesses? As the president explained back when he was selling the cuts the first time around, "many small businesses are unincorporated, many are what they call Subchapter S," and those businesses pay personal income tax. This, at least, is true. I myself am one of the approximately 5 percent of Americans who has a Subchapter S small business. So will I pay? No. My business, sadly, generates less than $200,000 per year in income. Just like lots of other people's small businesses. Just like, in fact, about 98 percent of all Subchapter S small businesses. So I won't pay, and unless you're part of the 0.1 percent or so of the public running an unincorporated business and making more than $200,000 per year while doing it, neither will you. Except that you might. Bush's small business rhetoric is so silly that when you pierce behind it he's making his plan look worse than it is. If Bush would just tell the truth about what he's doing -- preserving tax cuts for the top 2 percent or so of earners -- he wouldn't be forced into the absurd situation of defending the prerogatives of an arbitrary 0.1 percent slice of the public. And what difference does it make whether or not you own a small business, anyway? A guy making $500,000 a year at a law firm is rich; a guy making $500,000 a year from his small business -- also rich. Say you earn $500,000 on your ranch. Well, you're rich. Farm? Also rich. And if you're a rich person -- whether you got rich from your ranch, your farm, your small business, your law firm, your medical practice, or your company's compensation committee -- you'll do pretty well under George W. Bush. Unless, that is, you mind getting lied to a lot, the country going bankrupt, and watching America's national security posture collapse. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww...&articleId=8317

The second quote is a doozy:

quote:

Bush also said high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy because "the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."

Ahh, so cutting the taxes to the rich (>$200,000) is a futile effort because they evade taxes? Did he honestly just say that?

Umm, aside of this ridiculous logic in this comment, doesn't that kinda beg this question - uhh, George, shouldn't we then be doin' something, like stricter laws on tax evaders?

George, you're in that higher tax bracket, right? Are you then implicating yourself (along with Kerry, Cheney, etc.) of tax evasion?

lol..

really 4 more years stupidity, mite ruin USA.

Now let me get this straight,

Rich people are small business owners.

Many really rich people cheat.

Small business owners bear the tax burden for the rich people who are small business owners who pay more taxes because the rich people who are rich people who cheat so the small business owners pay more taxes because...

Jesus, did George ever hear of circular reasoning?

In essence, in these remarks Mr Bush divides the rich into two categories: Small business owners who apparently don't or can't cheat and "Really Rich People" who dodge their taxes a lot.

Hey, George, EVERYONE pays more if the "Really Rich People" dodge their taxes, not just small business owners.

My God, this is incredible reasoning. You conservative folks really buy into these lines?

the tax evasion red herring this time huh?

quote:

"the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."

this representing the top .15% and yes, this includes him. i refuse to spell out for you the ways and means those .15% use to "shelter" themselves from taxation b/c you can't possibly not know already.

or maybe i'm misunderstanding you. are you honestly that miffed about him using the word "dodge" to describe the way "really rich" people shelter themselves? this can't be about semantics, can it?

One way that "really rich" people "dodge" (Not CHEAT, Opus) on their taxes is to make large charitable donations, which are "tax deductible", therefore lowering the taxes that they will pay to the government. They have therefore "dodged" a portion of their tax burden.

Other ways would be to take losses on investments, which are tax deductible up to a certain threshold, with deferred losses allowed to be used for years until they are used up. Yet another way to "dodge" a tax liability to the federal government.

Are these people paying less in taxes than they otherwise would have? Well...duh. Is it bad that they are giving large amounts to charity? Hardly, IMO. I'd much prefer charitable donations over redistribution of wealth in the first place. Is it bad that Bill Gates donates billions of dollars to foundations and charities and therefore probably pays very little in taxes?

Sheesh, you're scaring me. Don't look to hard for a conspiracy! Dodge is more accurately compared to the word "avoid", which is how I think he meant it. Not that he meant "Tax evasion" which would be more akin to "cheating".

On a side note, why do liberals tend to fall under the belief that all wealth and money belongs to the government in the first place?

Unfortunatly I can't remember the exact quote, or who made it, but it makes sense to me.

"Democrats and Republicans both expect the individual to contribute to society. Democrats aim to do it by taking resources and redistributing them to their personal advantage. Republicans do it by allowing the individual to contribute for their own gain."

I whole-heartedly believe in this premise, and no, it's not "trickle-down" economics, it's how this country lived and strived prior to about 1965.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka One way that "really rich" people "dodge" (Not CHEAT, Opus) on their taxes is to make large charitable donations, which are "tax deductible", therefore lowering the taxes that they will pay to the government. They have therefore "dodged" a portion of their tax burden. Other ways would be to take losses on investments, which are tax deductible up to a certain threshold, with deferred losses allowed to be used for years until they are used up. Yet another way to "dodge" a tax liability to the federal government. Are these people paying less in taxes than they otherwise would have? Well...duh. Is it bad that they are giving large amounts to charity? Hardly, IMO. I'd much prefer charitable donations over redistribution of wealth in the first place. Is it bad that Bill Gates donates billions of dollars to foundations and charities and therefore probably pays very little in taxes?

You really believe this is what Bush is referring to when he states "dodge"? Giving to charity and thus lowering your tax payments is not an exclusive act by most affluent do here. If this is what Bush is referring to, however, I think a little clarification on his part is needed. Because otherwise, the word "dodge" could be easily misconstrued, much to the chagrine of folks like Q5echo .

quote:

Sheesh, you're scaring me. Don't look to hard for a conspiracy!

Hey now, don't you know me by now? It's what I live for, damnit!

quote:

Dodge is more accurately compared to the word "avoid", which is how I think he meant it. Not that he meant "Tax evasion" which would be more akin to "cheating".

Noted.

quote:

On a side note, why do liberals tend to fall under the belief that all wealth and money belongs to the government in the first place?

Why do you think we believe it belongs to the government? I think we've seen the government doin' a fine job mismanaging money from time to time. Hell, I think we're seeing this lovely performance right now in the rebuilding mess in Iraq!

Money belongs to the people. The fact that gov't represents the people's interests does not necessarily entail it should have all our finances. On the contrary, though I didn't want to admit it at first, I think it is appropriate at times to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. However, esp. during times of economic downturns, I think it is entirely appropriate for a more even distribution of finances as a whole in order to sustain a more productive and efficient economy (i.e. raise taxes in some way, shape, or fashion). On the whole I think most would agree with this type of strategy, except with the hardcore libertarians who believe in no taxation whatsoever. The differences rely in the timing and methodology of this strategy, however.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Money belongs to the people. The fact that gov't represents the people's interests does not necessarily entail it should have all our finances.

Your wording is vague here...does wealth belong to the people who create it, or do you mean that wealth belongs to "the people" as some sort of collective? If the latter, you're proving Shakka's point. If the former, then why do you want to tax people and redistribute the wealth they created?

quote:

On the contrary, though I didn't want to admit it at first, I think it is appropriate at times to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. However, esp. during times of economic downturns, I think it is entirely appropriate for a more even distribution of finances as a whole in order to sustain a more productive and efficient economy (i.e. raise taxes in some way, shape, or fashion).

Generally (very generally) you'd want to lower taxes in an economic downtown to stimulate recovery (as the Bush cuts did), and you want to raise taxes to slow the economy down if its doing too well in order to avoid inflation. Raising taxes during an economic downtown will further blunt investment and growth: less jobs, and paradoxically, less tax revenue. If your solution to a recession is to at least make sure everyone is suffering at the same mediocre level, you'll find it very hard to ever grow the economy out.

quote:

Originally posted by tupsox Your wording is vague here...does wealth belong to the people who create it, or do you mean that wealth belongs to "the people" as some sort of collective? If the latter, you're proving Shakka's point. If the former, then why do you want to tax people and redistribute the wealth they created?

My wording is vague because admittedly the details of economics are not my forte. However, no I do not believe in a Borg-like socialist collective of money for everyone, at least not to the extreme. However, taxes are most certainly a necessity in our society for a wide range of needs from highways, education, social security, military, healthcare, etc., and history has demonstrated these benefits as a whole.

For the most part, our progressive income tax system is effective, and I agree with the system as a whole.

quote:

Generally (very generally) you'd want to lower taxes in an economic downtown to stimulate recovery (as the Bush cuts did), and you want to raise taxes to slow the economy down if its doing too well in order to avoid inflation. Raising taxes during an economic downtown will further blunt investment and growth: less jobs, and paradoxically, less tax revenue.

I agree with your 1st premise, however I disagree with the details of the tax cut. More money should have been distributed to the middle class, which again history has shown a strong middle class benefits our country's economy. However, this was not the case for Bush's tax cuts, which the majority of cuts benefitted the affluent.

Now before you state, "Well, it's their money, isn't it?", I agree with you. However, this does not benefit a recovery situation unless you distribute the money, unevenly if necessary, toward those that spend their money which ultimately lifts up the economy, which is the middle class.

I disagree with your second premise of raising taxes, because you state that we are in an economic downturn. Unless you are disagreeing with Bush, who states we are recovering and are on an upswing, you'll have to expound further on how we are still in a downturn (although some libs might actually agree with you there).

Furthermore, the taxes have contributed heavily towards our deficit, which even the most staunch conservatives can't disagree on now that the figures are well known. So raising taxes now will also benefit our federal revenue and thus start lowering our deficit.

Bottom line: Bush's tax cuts did help stimulate our economy to a certain degree, but he must understand that the deficit (you know, all that fucking money we keep borrowing?) is going to be a major burden on our economic future sooner or later. Combine this with the necessity for the Fed to avoid long-term interest rates to rise to the roof, we need to raise taxes now.

Reagan was wise to listen to my ex-Senator, Bob Dole, on this matter after his major tax cut in '81. Why can't our President understand this basic concept as well?

quote:

If your solution to a recession is to at least make sure everyone is suffering at the same mediocre level, you'll find it very hard to ever grow the economy out.

It would do you more credit not to paint every liberal you see with a broad extremist brush like this. I'm not sure if it's a result of a misunderstanding on your part of what I said, or a need for clarification on my part of my stance, but this Limbaugh tactic of rounding all individuals who disagree with Bush's policies (economic, foreign, etc.) into one corner is becoming rather repetitive.

Kerry the war hero had 4 months in Vietnam and 5 medals before he pulled out to join the antiwar protesters. Am sick of hearing how his war experience as a lieutenant in the Navy on a boat in Vietnam for those few months somehow better qualifies him than Bush who's been running a worldwide war on terrorism for 3 years. Bush goes the Republican party line on economics. They have to have a few smart guys figuring it out; he's not doing it on his own...


[[[smoke]]]

why do liberals always bitch about rich people. there's rich liberals out there too, probably as many as there are rich conservatives...yet they always bitch about someone having "more" than they. get a job. or 2. then a life.

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by JM why do liberals always bitch about rich people. there's rich liberals out there too, probably as many as there are rich conservatives...yet they always bitch about someone having "more" than they. get a job. or 2. then a life. >JM<

What liberals are you referring to? Be specific.


Added in edit: Why do conservatives always bitch about poor people? There's poor conservatives out there too, probably as many as there are rich conservatives...yet they always bitch about someone having "less" they they. Get fired. again and again. then relax and be a bum.

Aren't stupid generalizations fun?

quote:

Originally posted by JM why do liberals always bitch about rich people. there's rich liberals out there too, probably as many as there are rich conservatives...yet they always bitch about someone having "more" than they. get a job. or 2. then a life. >JM<

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 There's poor conservatives out there too, probably as many as there are rich conservatives...yet they always bitch about someone having "less" they they.

Problem is, they won't accept my donations! They're so independent!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.