quote:

Originally posted by occrider What's the matter? You never took my cheapshots so seriously before!

My bad mood has carried over from my long-ass weekend. Sorry, but Mr. Sensitive is getting the best of me today.

As for the rest of your argument, I've got some free time tomorrow so I'll respond then. I'm out the door right now, so I just want to make one quick general comment:

IF I could get my state to fund more, believe me I would. You try getting the Republican-dominated state Congress of Kansas to raise taxes on something, ANYTHING, and I'll be shocked out of my socks.

I'll talk more later...

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Everytime John Kerry slams the rich, he slams my parents, who live in an area where $150k after taxes will barely pay for house payments, two car payments, and living expenses. It's sick and disgusting that they scrape to get by and have to listen to that "not paying their fair share" crap everytime they turn on the TV.

Dude, not to be a dick, but if your parents are just scraping by on $150k/year then they need to think about the lifestyle they choose to live.

I agree with the rest of your post, but sorry that I don't shed any tears for your parents when they live in a nice big house, have two nice cars, and an expensive lifestyle and then moan about how tough life is... I'm sure they work very hard and earn every penny they are paid, but I feel no sympathy for their pain....

quote:

Originally posted by mps242 Dude, not to be a dick, but if your parents are just scraping by on $150k/year then they need to think about the lifestyle they choose to live. I agree with the rest of your post, but sorry that I don't shed any tears for your parents when they live in a nice big house, have two nice cars, and an expensive lifestyle and then moan about how tough life is... I'm sure they work very hard and earn every penny they are paid, but I feel no sympathy for their pain....

It's not lifestyle, it's location. And granted, they chose the location, but the feds take no consideration in your taxes dependent on where you live. (They can't, because of equal apportionment of taxation in the Constitution).

They live in West LA, so they can have a commute to work that's less than an hour each way. The median home price is $6-700k for a 2-bedroom ranch with no yard. Their cars aren't that great, both American, under $25k. And they're saving for retirement. Don't talk shit about their lifestyle, because you're obviously not aware of the situation.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

Also, my apologies to MisterOpus1. The time I posted the first response to the thread was right after a slew of posts 'sufee_b'. I was getting sick of his shit, and my anger should have been directed at him.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Everytime John Kerry slams the rich, he slams my parents, who live in an area where $150k after taxes will barely pay for house payments, two car payments, and living expenses. It's sick and disgusting that they scrape to get by and have to listen to that "not paying their fair share" crap everytime they turn on the TV.

Im sorry to hear that.. is odd though. I live in a community thats expensive as well, where you don't find houses lower then 300 thousand, and where the parking lot of the public school is full of beemers and such... where the Turnberry Isles resort has taken over, as well where Trumph is building it's empire of buildings, as well as the so famous Golden Beach states, one of the most expensive houses in South Florida.. Im talking about all this Aventura, Sunny Isles, Golden BEach, if you've been to the area, you know what Im talking about.. and you know what.. ?!! Oddly enough, everyone just slamly hates bush, and Im not talking because I don't like the guy, is because that's how it is ( if I can find something or a link telling me what the region mostly votes for.. would be great ), or maybe because this is a predominantly democratic area, and it's wierd, because everyone just happens to be rich.. mmmmm and they don't cry .

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok It's not lifestyle, it's location. And granted, they chose the location, but the feds take no consideration in your taxes dependent on where you live. (They can't, because of equal apportionment of taxation in the Constitution). They live in West LA, so they can have a commute to work that's less than an hour each way. The median home price is $6-700k for a 2-bedroom ranch with no yard. Their cars aren't that great, both American, under $25k. And they're saving for retirement. Don't talk shit about their lifestyle, because you're obviously not aware of the situation.

Imokurok is absolutely correct. You can't just see a number and make a wild assumption/conclusion about someone. It's hard to scrape by on less than a 6 figure salary if you live in Manhattan, however $30K a year is probably plenty if you live in a hell hole like Tupelo, Mississippi. Not to mention that the family may have 6 kids for all you know, which is a huge drain on anyone's funds, regardless of how much they earn. In the Phillipenes you could buy the whole country lunch for a year on a small salary. It's all relative.

I think you should wait until you're an income earner yourself before you start railing on people for how much money they make.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 A pretty interesting article on a study which demonstrates the effects of Bush's tax cuts on other taxes, as well as the imbalanced effects of those tax cuts on the lower and middle classes. I'd be interested in hearing comments from conservatives to refute these points: * Since 1962, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined by two-thirds, while the share contributed by individuals has risen 17 percent.

You gotta love the analysis of statistics or even statements. Two people from two totally different points of view can use it to prove their points. Unfortunately, a lot of times these "statistics" are not even correct as stated. If they were given about 10 pages more of context and re-explained in better terminology they would at least come close to being correct. As they stand, however, they are close to useless and slightly better, perhaps, than the average person's opinion.

The statistic I quoted above is a prime example of this. It is flat-out wrong. The exact opposite is actually true. Since 1962, or really since the beginning of our current system, non-voluntary corporate contributions to federal revenues has always increased, not decreased. Two possible alterations to this:

1) The RATE at which contribution increases may go down. But it is still an increase. Just at a lower RATE or speed than previous increases.

2) They are speaking relatively, with the I (business investment) portion of G, I, C in basic models being considered versus the C (consumer) portion. Speaking about these things relatively without discussing them seperately or historically in relation to their seperate increases is ridiculous. If this is the case, as I might suspect, they are merely saying that consumers pay a larger percentage of federal revenues in relation to business investment.

Let me discuss this further. From a professional standpoint, I would have to say, well ....no SHIT! And might I add ...DUH! Yes, consumers are spending more money today, even relatively speaking, than they were in 1962. This INCREASE has been so significant as to discount respectively significant INCREASES in business investment, or non-voluntary corporate contributions to federal revenues. Both of those things are good. Pointing out the relative shifts in one to the other from over 40 years ago to suggest that corporations are paying LESS now IN TOTAL, ON AVERAGE or the like is just crazy. Not only false, it is basically impossible even during terrorist attacks (2001) and stock market crashes (1987, 1989)...



by the way, this isn't meant in anyway as an attack on the person who started this thread, MisterOpus, as this is an excellent topic for debate. It is more a little bit of reasoning missing from interpretations of data presented to the mainstream. Only one thing bothers me more than hearing about how a decrease in a RATE (such as GDP/Productivity) is reported like it is a decrease in TOTAL (two totally different things). (Decreases in rates are still increases in total, just not at the same rates) That other thing was hearing all the idiots talk in the 90s about how we had finally discounted economic theory and the bubble would never burst. Those same people who were so positive then can't "afford" to be anything but negative now. A little moderation seems in order, and a more clear and simple explanation of what is going on around us.

...and I don't wanna hear anyone on the left bashing me thinking I'm on the right. You'd be wrong in such an assumption.

___________________
"All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." --Martin Luther King, Jr.
----------------------------------
CTA #20

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Fin You gotta love the analysis of statistics or even statements. Two people from two totally different points of view can use it to prove their points. Unfortunately, a lot of times these "statistics" are not even correct as stated. If they were given about 10 pages more of context and re-explained in better terminology they would at least come close to being correct. As they stand, however, they are close to useless and slightly better, perhaps, than the average person's opinion. The statistic I quoted above is a prime example of this. It is flat-out wrong. The exact opposite is actually true. Since 1962, or really since the beginning of our current system, non-voluntary corporate contributions to federal revenues has always increased, not decreased. Two possible alterations to this: 1) The RATE at which contribution increases may go down. But it is still an increase. Just at a lower RATE or speed than previous increases. 2) They are speaking relatively, with the I (business investment) portion of G, I, C in basic models being considered versus the C (consumer) portion. Speaking about these things relatively without discussing them seperately or historically in relation to their seperate increases is ridiculous. If this is the case, as I might suspect, they are merely saying that consumers pay a larger percentage of federal revenues in relation to business investment. Let me discuss this further. From a professional standpoint, I would have to say, well ....no SHIT! And might I add ...DUH! Yes, consumers are spending more money today, even relatively speaking, than they were in 1962. This INCREASE has been so significant as to discount respectively significant INCREASES in business investment, or non-voluntary corporate contributions to federal revenues. Both of those things are good. Pointing out the relative shifts in one to the other from over 40 years ago to suggest that corporations are paying LESS now IN TOTAL, ON AVERAGE or the like is just crazy. Not only false, it is basically impossible even during terrorist attacks (2001) and stock market crashes (1987, 1989)... by the way, this isn't meant in anyway as an attack on the person who started this thread, MisterOpus, as this is an excellent topic for debate. It is more a little bit of reasoning missing from interpretations of data presented to the mainstream. Only one thing bothers me more than hearing about how a decrease in a RATE (such as GDP/Productivity) is reported like it is a decrease in TOTAL (two totally different things). (Decreases in rates are still increases in total, just not at the same rates) That other thing was hearing all the idiots talk in the 90s about how we had finally discounted economic theory and the bubble would never burst. Those same people who were so positive then can't "afford" to be anything but negative now. A little moderation seems in order, and a more clear and simple explanation of what is going on around us. ...and I don't wanna hear anyone on the left bashing me thinking I'm on the right. You'd be wrong in such an assumption.

In no way would I see this as an attack, Fin, and I welcome your informative opinion, regardless of your political views.

I have to say that this point in the article was probably the weakest point made, and you were correct to refute it the way you did.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Okay, I'm breaking this up in 3 parts, just to keep this long rant under control. So here goes:

quote:

Originally posted by Occrider Well obviously I'm not calling for an abolishment of all federal taxes, what I'm calling for is a reduction in federal taxes such that proceeds of said tax go towards paying for federal institutions rather than state projects. If the state needs funding to pay for education, public works projects, etc., than the state should raise taxes. Why should we pay more in federal taxes to pay for pork barrell projects that other states manage to successfully lobby the federal government for? Why should we pay ANY federal tax money to states when the state can, and should, raise its own taxes if it needs to pay for something it wants? It increases accountability on the part of the state to do what's in the best interest of its citizens cost wise and benefits wise. But why is the shifting of the tax burden to states discriminatory on Bush's part? It's each state's own tax laws, they have sole discretion to alter their tax brackets to whatever they would like. Why is the state not discriminatory, and why are you not directing your criticism at the state rather than bush? The state tax structure only becomes an issue now that bush is decreasing the federal tax role? Well, if anything this should expose the inequity of our states' laws ... something that is far easier and tangible to change as opposed to federal law.

Well I think again you have an idealistic viewpoint on where the money shifting from the federal to the states, where the states actually have to pick up the tabs for their own endeavors. To that idealism I would agree. But a few things come to mind:

1. According to the study I posted, between 2002-2004, state govt’s closed approx. $200 billion in budget gaps with cuts in services and raising taxes, while during that same time $197 billion in new tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans was given. Now this is where I agree strongly with Kerry – why do the wealthiest 1% need that much in tax breaks? Don’t the wealthiest 1% typically invest in their money, and how would that help our overall economy? Furthermore, how would that increase demand of products in any way (part of the supply-side theory I never understood, but I’m digressing on this)? If that money could have been diverted to other needs (such as the state grants and so forth), not only could we have helped where it was needed, but the deficit would have been that much less.

2. Considering the pitfall that the states were suffering from as a result of a decrease in state revenue, was this really a good time to shift that burden onto the states? Was it a good time to give these states a financial crisis, thus creating huge cuts across the board in employment, Medicaid, and education, as well as other various state programs? Much of the state money is tied to federal grants, so when Bush cut a lot of those grants, that left the states up sh$t creek. A few points from this study:

http://www.cbpp.org/10-22-03sfp4.htm

quote:

Tax cuts - Some of the federal tax cuts enacted since 2001 are reducing state revenues because of linkages between the federal and state tax codes. Restrictions on state taxation - For example, the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, first enacted in 1998, bars states from taxing the access fees that people pay for Internet service. In addition, two Supreme Court cases prevent state and local governments from collecting sales taxes on most catalog or Internet purchases, even though sales taxes apply when the very same items are purchased in retail stores. Federal legislation has recently been introduced to correct this problem but has not garnered significant support from Congress or the Administration, and its passage is not expected anytime soon. Unfunded mandates - In several policy areas, such as homeland security and education, the federal government has burdened states with demands and requirements but has not provided adequate funding to enable states to meet them. Shifting health care costs - For over a decade, the cost of health care for low-income elderly and disabled people has been shifting from Medicare to Medicaid. A prominent reason is the increasing use of prescription drugs, which Medicaid covers but Medicare does not. Because Medicare is fully federally funded, while Medicaid is jointly financed by the federal government and the states, this shift in costs from Medicare to Medicaid has increased the financial pressure on states. The recently enacted Medicare drug bill will leave states responsible for the large majority of their drug costs. Under the drug bill, seniors eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid will receive drug coverage through Medicare beginning in 2006. While this will produce significant savings for state Medicaid programs, states will be required to return the bulk of these savings to the federal government in perpetuity. The $20 billion in fiscal relief Congress provided in 2003 has helped states cope with the fiscal crisis, but it pales in comparison to the size of the problem. Yet the large deficits faced by the federal government prevent it from doing more. Moreover, a significant part of the projected federal deficits is caused by the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which primarily benefit households least in need of assistance. For example, households making over $1 million a year will receive an average tax cut in 2003 of $113,000 each, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Here’s a more comprehensive overview:
http://www.cbpp.org/10-17-03sfp.htm

Additionally, it’s really quite a lovely thing that the federal govt. enjoys being able to avoid balancing it’s budget every year, but as you well know the states are obligated to do just that. This is one serious disadvantage when we’re talking about state vs. federal spending (and tax cuts), considering that the fed. govt. doesn’t necessarily have to owe up to anything at the end of the fiscal year (though the deficit will eventually bite Bush in the ass) verses the state.

So while I do believe states should have a more responsibility for their own given programs, now was certainly not the time for Bush to throw them out and fend on their own, at least in the manner that he chose to do.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Here's the second part:

quote:

Originally posted by Occrider Just as an aside, I know you're arguing about the shifting of the tax burden as opposed to absolute effect, but as a clarification to others the tax cuts have not had a negative effect (even taking into account state taxes) so far: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=100 http://www.ctj.org/pdf/fsl2004.pdf

This is the part I’ve been reviewing for so long. I’ve had my other 2 points done a couple of days ago, but I really wanted to check a few things out on this. Thus far, this is what I’ve come up with:
For example, here’s a quote I ran across from the Center for Budget Priorities:

quote:

The decline in state revenue would have been even worse had not a majority of states raised taxes. Since late 2001, about 30 states have expanded their tax bases or increased tax rates to lessen the decline in revenues. Such tax increases have been enacted in states with Republican leadership, Democratic leadership, and bipartisan leadership. When fully implemented, these tax increases will raise some $18.4 billion per year, about 3.4 percent of total state tax collections. Nevertheless, the tax increases enacted during this downturn are far fewer and smaller than the tax cuts enacted during the economic expansion of the 1990s. From 1994 to 2001, some 44 states enacted significant tax cuts. The economic boom of the late 1990s, and in particular the large increase in capital gains during those years, temporarily offset the revenue loss resulting from those tax cuts. Those temporary economic conditions have ended. Yet most of the tax cuts of the 1990s remain in place and are costing states some $40 billion or more per year. It also is worth noting that while most of the tax cuts of the 1990s were in progressive taxes (taxes that fall most heavily on higher-income households), most of the recent tax increases have been in regressive taxes. In other words, lower-income households benefited less from the tax cuts of the 1990s and now are being hurt more by the tax hikes of 2002-2003. http://www.cbpp.org/10-22-03sfp4.htm

Emphasis mine. So the first emphasis mentions tax cuts across some 41 states, but not so much as a result of the Bush tax cuts, but from the tax cuts during the late ‘90’s economic boom. Guess they did actually think good times would last forever, who knows. The second emphasis, though it’s a side note, I felt was interesting in that again we see a shifting of the tax problems onto the lower-income, because the cut in the progressive taxes in the 90’s benefited the upper-income much more, and now the tax hikes recently are regressive (sales taxes, for ex.), which effects lower-income folks much greater.

A second point I had from this study here:

www.itepnet.org/wp2000/pr.pdf or

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cach...t+poor%22&hl=en

which concurs somewhat with the very first study I posted on this thread, saying that:

quote:

Nationwide, middle-income families pay almost 10 percent on their earnings in state and local taxes and poor families pay more than 11 percent. But the richest people effectively pay only 5.2 percent of their income in state and local taxes. Since 1989, state and local taxes have risen on low- and middle-income taxpayers, but have fallen on the very wealthy.

But according to the factcheck.org article you gave as well as the CTJ figure, yes, much of the rise in state taxes (if any were made) does not offset the fed. tax cuts. That much is definitely true, and that changes my original stance on state/local tax increases.
However, given the information on how much state/local taxes vs. federal taxes are effecting the lower-income folks verses the upper income, I believe the stance is still valid as to who’s benefiting more and who’s hurting more from these tax cuts (and not just from Bush). Finally, from your CTJ article:

quote:

Combined federal, state and local taxes in 2004 will take only a slightly higher share of the income of the very richest Americans than the average for all other income groups.

So the taxes OVERALL are coming further down for the rich as a % of income, and are becoming closer and closer to the % of income paid from the lower-wage workers. I know this is ideal for Bush and the conservatives, essentially having a flat-tax overall for everyone, but again decreasing the progressive tax benefits one group much more substantially than everyone else (the rich), and that in no way helps our overall economy.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Apr-29-2004 at 21:40

And the last part:

quote:

Originally posted by Occrider It's a comparison that shouldn't even be made. Those are two completely different taxes that are funding two completely different purposes.

Of course it is. Can you name me two completely different taxes that fund the same purpose? The comparison is noteworthy, however, because it is a comparison on how our govt. is treating progressive vs. regressive taxes (esp. with Bush’s tax cuts). I’ll explain more below.

quote:

The payroll tax solely contributes to social security and medicare and only taxes workers. It does not go anywhere else, and it's always going to go up, regardless of what an administration wants to do, with the way medicare and social security are structured. Therefore, one can ALWAYS unfairly criticize ANY decrease in ANY type of tax other than the payroll tax as shafting the worker because, simply put, no one is going to decrease that particular tax which is an individual entity in itself so to speak. For example: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...a.ap/index.html Bush wants to do away with the internet access tax and extend it to broadband. It is by default bad to remove such a tax however, since it comes at the expense of workers because of the increased payroll tax.

I disagree, not just with your analogy but with your reasoning here. The internet access tax is a flat tax fee. Similar to a sales tax, this type of tax has a more cumulative effect on the low-pay worker’s income vs. the higher-paid individual. If this tax is removed, in essence it would not necessarily benefit one income group over the other. Though a progressive tax on everything, including an item such as the internet, would be ideal in its overall effects on everyone’s income, of course that’s terribly unrealistic, so the next best thing to me would to get rid of it altogether. So in truth, I really don’t mind this cut that Bush proposes.

(Side note: that CNN article talks about Bush’s hydrogen fuel initiatives. If we’re not suspicious of Bush’s plan, I think we should be:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/out.../ma_375_01.html)

So to compare this type of tax to another regressive tax, such as the payroll, would not be the correct comparison to make. But I want to continue on with the payroll tax and comparing regressive to progressive taxation.

As I stated earlier, I’m not crazy for the regressive payroll tax, which puts more hurt on the lower income worker (and I do think we at least agree on that point). Considering that the payroll tax ceases at $87,900 and above (for 2004), that’s a ridiculous regression on the tax scale IMO. Perhaps a more progressive tax increase should be in order for payroll should be implemented as well, but I know that likely wouldn’t fly. However, I still think it is noteworthy for the following reason – we are examining how corporations have saved lotsa $ as a result of the tax cuts. The author of the study is comparing how the regressive payroll tax has a disproportionate effect on the lower income workers, thus effecting lower income workers more. So we have corporations making more money as a result of the tax cut (and hourly wages haven’t increased, I might add), yet lower wage workers are still getting the shaft. I don’t believe this is an argument against payroll taxes (though one can be created), but rather it’s an argument showing the disproportionate giving to the upper elite and big businesses without the same proportional effects seen onto the lower wage worker in any way, shape, or form. In fact, with this comparison, it’s showing the lower wage worker is still getting the shaft.

I understand how it seems like this is an apples to oranges comparison, but I still believe it’s a noteworthy comparison that demonstrates how one group (corporations) are benefiting hugely from a progressive income tax rate that’s continually decreasing, while the other group (low wage workers) benefits zilch have to deal with an increasing regressive tax rate. As the United for Fair Economy study points out(from which my first post was derived):

quote:

Since 1962, the top corporate tax rate has been cut from 52% to 35% and the top income tax rate has been cut from 91% to 35% (this is on dollars earned above the threshold rate). Over the same period, the payroll tax rate has been raised from 6.25% to 15.3% (this includes both the employer and employee shares of the tax, but it is commonly agreed that employers compensate for their payroll tax share with lower wages for employees so the employee effectively pays the total tax). The case of the progressive income tax is more complex but telling nonetheless. The share of federal revenue contributed by the progressive income tax has remained essentially constant since 1962, even though income has become dramatically more concentrated at the top of the spectrum during the period. Had income tax rates remained unchanged, we would have expected the income-tax share to rise as income grew and became more concentrated. Instead, the income-tax share was constrained by large tax cuts at the top. The revenue effects of the recent income tax cuts can be clearly seen in the sharp shift in tax burden from income taxes to payroll taxes since 2000. If current trends continue, the payroll tax will surpass the income tax as the leading source of federal revenue sometime within the decade. Once again, this tax shift affects who is paying for the cost of government. Since 71% of households pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, the long-term shift toward payroll taxes has placed a heavier tax burden onto the shoulders of ordinary working Americans.

Again, I don’t think this is an argument for cutting payroll taxes, but rather an argument to stop the monumental cutting of income taxes, esp. for the corporate and the financially elite, whom are clearly benefiting a great deal more from it than the bottom group. But what’s more, because of the regressive payroll tax increase, the bottom dwellers are paying more while the corporates and the elites continue to benefit much more from the income tax cuts.

I think the corporate tax breaks have to stop. According to the study:

quote:

In 1965, US federal, state, and local income taxes were 4.1% of US GDP. In 2002, the last year for which full federal, state and local figures are available, US corporate taxes plummeted to only 1.5% of GDP. Corporate lobbyists claim that the US overtaxes business. But corporations are lightly taxes in the US compared with our trading partners. In a survey of industrialized countries by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US came in 22nd out of 29 countries in terms of corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP in 2000. If other countries’ corporate tax shares remained the same, reports Citizens for Tax Justice, the US would have had the lowest tax share in 2002 of all the other countries except Iceland.

And considering that more than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000, I find it a sham that we are not doing something that requires more from our corporations to foot the bill and pay their share:

http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/ind...406-000047-0158

But even more so, it seems that our gov’t is more or less willing to let it happen (and again, I’m not just referring to Bush here, obviously).

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...