# tax cuts



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush's tax cuts offered the biggest benefits to families in the highest income categories, according to a study cited in a published report Monday.
> 
> Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any other group, The New York Times reported, citing a Congressional study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
> 
> ...


Ah yes, tax cuts, were nice but I am sure happy the burden was shifted to the middle class so those poor rich people had a little more disposable income to make ends meet.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Well DJ here I am again. Look at the number again. Statistics are fun to play with.

The middle class earners making 56,000 a year had their taxes cut 41%. From 5% to 2.9%.

The rich folks making 1.25 million a year saw their taxes cut 21%. From 24.2% to 19.6%.

Look at the final tally this way

$56,000/yr at 2.9% taxes pays...... $1624

1,250,000 at 19.6% taxes pays...... $245,000

Awe yes those rich SOB's aren't pulling their wt. You gotta love partisan politics.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I should tell you this too DJ I do enjoy debating with you. You have well thought out points and don't digress to name calling. I hope we can keep debating without getting angry. Thanks.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I notice ya didnt paste the part of the article that mentions the poor didnt pay any taxes, and in fact usually recieved more than they paid in due to the EIC.

So wheres the problem? Everyone is paying less taxes than in 2000, and the poor still get free money.

Oh and for what its worth, my wife and I own our home, do pretty good for ourselves with what we make, have a newer SUV, a couple of classic cars, and dont resort to eating Ramen 3 times a week. We still qualify for the EIC....


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Sure wish someone would define middle income. $56,000 might qualify you as middle income in most of my state but it will put you out on the streets begging in places like New York and San Francisco. Read a report the other day how the GAO was playing funny games with numbers. Seems they are now counting illegal aliens as low income or poor. So if you take the new figures of the poor and low income, place it against the numbers of the middle class which did not change, it appears that the middle class is shrinking percentage wise. Numbers can be adjusted to present any picture you want to paint.


----------



## BigDDL (Sep 29, 2004)

So Gun Owner, you still qualify for the EIC? Question is, did you use it? I'd have a hard time believing anyone who said they turned it down. I'd also have a hard time understanding why anyone who qualified and used the EIC would complain about someone else doing the same....


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Hell yes I used it! Put that money right into my house  Call me what you will, but I believe I'd be a fool not to take that money even if I think its screwy that I qualify for it.

The point of my post was to show that according to the government, I'm "poor". If you listen to what all the liberal socialists have to say about my income level, I should be living in a studio apartment struggling to eat. Its all about money management. If I can do it, anybody can.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

50% of the wage earners in America pay virtually no income taxes (less than 3.5% of taxes collected) and a large portion of that fifty percent pay LITERALLY no income taxes.

When the top 1% pay over 1/3 of all taxes collected and the top 10% pay almost 2/3 of all the taxes collected ...

Where do you go to cut taxes ...

You can't cut taxes for folks who don't even pay taxes, as with the EIC it becomes a simple and straight forward "Redistribution of the Wealth".

Unless of course you a believe America can tax it's self into prosperity.

If you do happen to believe that, bear in mind the Government creates ZERO Wealth ... the American people create wealth, the Government can only confiscate it.


----------



## Norm70 (Aug 26, 2005)

Gohon said:


> Sure wish someone would define middle income. $56,000 might qualify you as middle income in most of my state but it will put you out on the streets begging in places like New York and San Francisco.


Holy Crap, If 56000 is middle income wow i better go get some food stamps cuz i am dirt poor. And if 56000 is dirt poor in NYC and San Fran. I would be living in a van down by the river.

Well then i could at least wake up drive directly to school and teach 

Sorry to get you guys off track BACK TO THE DEBATE :beer:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Back to the debate, i agree with decoy dummy. The bottom 50% pay essentially no taxes so Bush tax cuts did essentially nothing for them.

FYI, In North Dakota, 3 year average (2004-2006) median household income (half make more, half make less) $39,594
Average ND income of the bottom 20% $16,805
Poverty threshhold for family of 4 in 2006 nationwide, $20,000

Sources: US Census bureau and US HHS data.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Back to the debate, i agree with decoy dummy. The bottom 50% pay essentially no taxes so Bush tax cuts did essentially nothing for them


Indsport, that is the funniest post I've ever read :lol: :lol:

The tax cuts helped revive a sagging economy as they have every single time since John Kennedy did it in the 60's. A good economy benefits everyone of us rich or poor, lowest unemployent numbers ever for example, and a big increase in federal revenue to the treasury. And that happens everytime tax rates are lowered.

Those facts seem to be lost in the tax debate, why???

Thats something the libs hate to admit for some reason I've never understood. They also never bring up the fact that the liberal hero JFK did it as well.

Liberals don't look at taxes as ameans to fund govt they look at them as ameans to punish hard working successful people and sway the "less fortunate" if you wan to be honest make that "less ambitious" and green with envy among us.

Liberals in congress ( and their ignorant minions) foster class envy in order to divide us for their own political advantage and care nothing about the country or the poor.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Back to the debate, i agree with decoy dummy. The bottom 50% pay essentially no taxes so Bush tax cuts did essentially nothing for them.


How is it possible, without socialistic redistribution of wealth, to give them a bigger break than no taxes at all. Do you think Bush or anyone else can beat that. Would you be happy with no taxes, or is there some way to pay less than nothing. I am sure what you mean is that they should tax the rich more and give it to the poor who don't pay any taxes. Am I right? What makes liberals enjoy the rich taking it in the shorts? Jealousy?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

It is a tad ODD isn't it ...

Liberals don't seem to understand how you can possibly be "Helping the Poor"

If you're not "Taking $$$ from the Rich."


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

What I want to know is how much should they pay? Since most of us pay less % wise than a person making a $1,000,000.00 what is fair Rooster! Do you set a flat amount that they have to pay?

Just tell us how much they should pay since you seem to think they are not paying enough!

I like this example posted earlier, what is enough?

*$56,000/yr at 2.9% taxes pays...... $1624

1,250,000 at 19.6% taxes pays...... $245,000*


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I'm glad Rooster did this. It illustrates my biggest beef anytime I hear this issue discussed. They use ACTUAL DOLLARS to unjustly argue their side.

Making statements like "tax cuts for the rich", and then justifying the statement by showing how much more the rich were discounted, completely ignoring the ridiculous amount they did NOT get back, and how that compares to what the rest paid.

Nothing is more fair than PERCENTAGE. You make a dollar, Sam gets a dime. I doubt many would have a problem with that. But the post above clearly shows the rich got much LESS of a cut than the rest, and not only is that not good enough for the left siders, they still have to resort to manipulations of the facts, if not outright lies.

I'm not rich, and doubt I ever will be. But one thing I know for sure is this. Each and every curve ball Sam throws at the rich instantly becomes a road block to any chance the rest of us will ever have to become one of them!

I wish more people would spend more time thinking about that and less time worrying about who has more than them.

But then, I wish for a lot of things!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

With the democrats in power now DJ should get his Taxes lower'd.
That will happen when pigs fly out of my butt :rollin:

The liberals would love to tax you into the stone age! uke:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Just looking at you and reading your posts make me think that is a pretty big butt! That might draw a censor!!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Seems to me that if you look at the numbers that this is about as big of a spending bunch as we have ever had in Washington and what party was in charge?? You guys talk about all the great things that you are doing but when you look at what has been accomplished in the last two presidential terms with a substantial majority in all branches it will be looked upon as about as big of a group of underachievers as we have ever had in Washington. Your legacy is written and it ain't pretty!! Keep telling yourself how great you are because the polls are bringing you back to reality!! Your republican swagger is going the way of your president and everyone is trying to distance themselves because they bought that narcisitic mirror that came with this administration. When I watched George W speech the other night I finally saw a little humility in him that is a much better image than the arrogant swagger as the bully of the free world. Too bad it took him the school of hard knocks to figure it out. He probably would have been a true leader if he had a little more humility. Oh well his legacy has been written.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

I think something we should try for 6 months is to suspend withholding income taxes from your paycheck. Give people their full pay (continue withhold the social security/medicare portion, the fica stuff) and require them to write a check for their tax bill for 6 mo in a row, due once a month, just like any other monthly payment.

I think we would see immediate demand for much greater oversite of all gov't programs, from everyone, regardless of party affiliation. If people had to start writing that check for $300, $400, $700, $800, etc. each month it would snap lots of folks back to reality that taxes are just plain too high, even if you get most of that money back at the end of the year.

This isn't a republican or democrat issue. This is a "I think I pay too much tax" issue and the spendthrifts have been coming from everywhere.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Horsager....

Did DH Rooster ever answer your question(s)?

Based on how he has totally avoided mine, I'm guessing the answer is "no".

He wouldn't admit he was wrong anyway. Not even if Hillary held a registered gun to his head. OOPS, bad example (we all know she would never do ANYTHING wrong), so make that George Bush holding the gun instead.

As evil as the DH thinks Bush is, I'm sure he would believe he would pull the trigger, but my money says he still wouldn't acknowledge your side has any merit.

But I could be wrong. (see how easy that was, DH?)


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

George W is not an evil person but the polls seem to reinforce the fact that he has not been the president everyone had hoped for and is certainly not the president that he said he was going to be! Didn't he call himself "the great unifier?" He not only has widened the gap between democrats and republicans but he has widened the gap between republicans. There were a lot of campaign promises but not many campaign follow through's. This is just fact. This is not an exageration on my part. This is something that I cannot help. I am sorry but this is reality, Csquared. Now as far as Hillary goes well this again is your perception because I don't remember saying anything about Hillary in this subject. If you want to slam Hillary go right ahead. I have not decided who I am supporting for the next run for the Presidency nor will I decide until I hear what the candidates have to say but then again Bush said a lot and the bottom line was he didn't get much done.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster, I think your misleading statistics were blown out of the water. Now how about the question concerning how much would the rich have to pay to keep you happy? I think Ron Gilmore asked you that question. Just where do you stand on redistribution of wealth?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

For a redundent question I will give a redundent answer. A "fair tax" but beauty is in the I of the beholder. For you flat tax people we should probably just keep raising the sales tax. That would prevent the redistribution of wealth that you guys thinks is such a god awfull concept. Yup, the sales tax the fairest tax you could ever find. What a joke!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's easy to say "what a joke", but can you explain why you think it is a joke. Even the lazy that you love so much would continue to get a free ride.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

We have discussed this many times and I have already stated why I think flat taxes such as sales taxes are not as "fair" of a tax as some would like to believe and why I am in favor of a progressive tax structure when it comes to income tax. The last tax cut made it even more flat and in my opinion the more flat it becomes the less fair it becomes. One man's opinion. Why do you call people who have need, lazy? I have never stated that lazy people should get something for nothing. This is another one of those weak statements you use to try and validate your opinion and some how pin your statement to my username. Lazy people get what they deserve but people who are unfortunate because of extenuating cirucmstances deserve help from those who are more fortunate. If you want to call them lazy, so be it but I will not call them lazy. Plainsman, calls them lazy, not DJ.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

DJ you artfully danced around the issue once again. Please tell us how much is enough!

In the above example, the amounts paid reflect the amounts earned. Why if someone is successful, are they required to carry the burden. All of us know people who are in need and deserve a hand up. All of us know people who are not motivated to elevate themselves off of public assistance. Why should Joe Successful continue to support via taxation those unwilling to try?

So tell us how much is enough or fair under your income re-distribution plan?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> For a redundent question I will give a redundent answer. A "fair tax" but beauty is in the I of the beholder. For you flat tax people we should probably just keep raising the sales tax. That would prevent the redistribution of wealth that you guys thinks is such a god awfull concept. Yup, the sales tax the fairest tax you could ever find. What a joke!


Please notice you were talking about "fair tax", but now you want to talk about flat tax. That wasn't my question. My question was why do you consider the "fair tax" a joke, as you stated.
I call unfortunate "unfortunate", and lazy "lazy". If you wish to ignore that there is nothing I can do. I am absolutely willing to help the unfortunate, and I have told you that many times. You simply want to twist it for advantage in this argument. All anyone has to do is go back and look at the posts. To see if we were talking "fair tax", or "flat tax" one only needs go back a couple of posts in this thread. Come on Rooster you can give some sort of answer to that question can't you?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

There you go again. Where does it say that I said a "fair tax" was a joke? The "fair tax" is not a joke. Far from it. The answer to your question is simple. If you want to find out about a "fair tax," talk to Bob. He has me convinced. Maybe he can talk some sense into you, too!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

DJ you have answered Plainsmen but continue to avoid my question! Can you please state what you thing is fair for some to pay in taxes?

Or is it as suspect you do not have a clue as to what one person should pay over another!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Yup, the sales tax the fairest tax you could ever find. What a joke!


The "fair tax" is a sales tax. Do you see my confusion about your statement now? 
Yes, Bob has me convinced about the fair tax too.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

If we all paid our fair share like the Cliton's do :lol: , the US government would go **** up! :rollin:


----------

