Bush: The American Leader

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Everyone who pays taxes got a tax cut under Bush's plan. that's truth and you admited it. Whether you think they got enough is imaterial.

 

Yeah, fine, I'll agree that everyone GOT them.

 

I still think that, proportionally, it helps the rich out infinitely more, though.

 

I'm not saying that the poor should get an amazing tax "break" of $100,000 or anything, either. I think we both agree that it's rather absurd to think that. However, even a few thousand dollars would help infinitely for those lower tax brackets; however, since they don't make $150,000 a year, they get $20 and the larger incomes get $25,000 and whatnot.

[Guest Some Guy]

So it's fair to tax someone 75% of their income?

Cite your source that the rich pay 75% of their income.

 

I've cited quite a few that suggest otherwise.

75% on income tax is an exageration, I THink the maximun Fed. income tax is 39.7% or something. Though when you add up all the taxes (income, sales, property, social securiity, medicare, dog [yes there are dog taxes], etc...) that people pay (local, state, and federal) 75% can be a realistic number.

 

Before JFK cut it to around 65%, the top Fed income tax was 91% in the 50s. EVen you have to admit that that is crazy. That is just fed income taxes, not any others.

[Guest Some Guy]

Everyone who pays taxes got a tax cut under Bush's plan. that's truth and you admited it. Whether you think they got enough is imaterial.

 

Yeah, fine, I'll agree that everyone GOT them.

 

I still think that, proportionally, it helps the rich out infinitely more, though.

Fair enough. You may be right, but that does not take away that everyone got them.

 

I find it ammusing that you are so reluctant to admit the truth when it comes to taxes. Not a flame, just an observation.

 

BTW, thanks for the apology.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

75% on income tax is an exageration, I THink the maximun Fed. income tax is 39.7% or something. Though when you add up all the taxes (income, sales, property, social securiity, medicare, dog [yes there are dog taxes], etc...) that people pay (local, state, and federal) 75% can be a realistic number.

 

Before JFK cut it to around 65%, the top Fed income tax was 91% in the 50s. EVen you have to admit that that is crazy. That is just fed income taxes, not any others.

Of course those figures are crazy. However, with the amount of things rich people are able to write off, they still don't pay even close to the percentage you are suggesting.

 

That being said, the small percentage they pay still dwarfs the amount of the lower brackets.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

By the way, I just figured out why my tax argument was lacking: we're not debating percentages.

 

If you take that into account, as I said above, they can still pay 90% of the tax income... but it puts barely a dent in their pocketbooks because they're able to write so much off. The average man probably (and I don't have a source to cite this, but I think it's fairly easy to validate) pays a higher percentage of his income than a richer individual. Even though he pays less, it hurts him a lot more.

[Guest Some Guy]

By the way, I just figured out why my tax argument was lacking: we're not debating percentages.

 

If you take that into account, as I said above, they can still pay 90% of the tax income... but it puts barely a dent in their pocketbooks because they're able to write so much off. The average man probably (and I don't have a source to cite this, but I think it's fairly easy to validate) pays a higher percentage of his income than a richer individual. Even though he pays less, it hurts him a lot more.

Not entirely true. IT hurts the middle class guy more monetarilly because he has less money to begin with than a rich person. But why should the rich pay through the nose while everyone pays nothing as you seem to be suggesting? Why not cut everybody's taxes way down and let people keep more of the money that they've earned?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

If you cut taxes, you end up cutting a lot of programs, too.

 

If we had some ultimate source of money, I'd be all in favor of cutting out the income tax, but... we don't have that alternate source of funding.

 

Also, just because 10% of a richer man's salary is $90,000 doesn't mean he's paying through the nose. He's still only paying 10% after deductions (if he has $9 Million, he can afford an accountant to find him those deductions), and he can more than afford that. However, let's say a middle class man, after deductions, pays 20% (that's modest; after all, middle classes have less things to deduct and write off typically) of his income. If he makes $50,000 a year, he's paying $10,000 in taxes... and even though the $90,000 of the richer man dwarfs that, he still can much less afford it than the richer man, who still has $8.1 million dollars.

[Guest EricMM]

Well that is part of the benefits of being an affluent American, what exactly do you want here?

 

Do you actually want to see socialism?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

By the way, I'd like to take the time and say I've been much more mentally fulfilled by debating with you than disputing Rob.

 

Stay on the boards and we could have some fun debates

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Well that is part of the benefits of being an affluent American, what exactly do you want here?

If they already pay relatively nothing, why give them more tax cuts?

 

Why not give the lower class a higher percentage of tax cuts, considering they already pay less than the rich guys to begin with? The income from their tax returns is relatively nil; why not allow them to sustain their lives a lot easier?

 

I'm not suggesting we just don't tax the middle class; that's utterly absurd. It would violate the 14th Amendment (Equal support under the law) because you would be charging people for being rich.

 

However, if you're already cutting taxes, why not give the poorer people more of a cut, allowing them to sustain their lives quite a bit easier?

[Guest EricMM]

check the backlogs Tyler, you're totally the Newbie. Did you ever talk to Marney, or MiketheSC or FK Teale?

[Guest Some Guy]

True, but so what? You're numbers are way off too, but that's besides the point. It would be more like the 9 million dollar man paying 39% and the $50,000 paying 20% in income tax. I agree that the middle class gets royally fucked by the tax system and that's why I think everybody should get a huge tax cut and a ton of programs should be cut. BUt that's another topic and I think this one is through.

[Guest EricMM]

Why not give the lower class a higher percentage of tax cuts, considering they already pay less than the rich guys to begin with? The income from their tax returns is relatively nil; why not allow them to sustain their lives a lot easier?

 

Because fair or not, rich people affect the economy way more than poor people do. If Poor people have more money, they will help themselves. If rich people have more money, they can invest it better and help the economy.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

check the backlogs Tyler, you're totally the Newbie. Did you ever talk to Marney, or MiketheSC or FK Teale?

I fought with Marney occasionally, but found her to be intolerable to anyone else's opinions, and therefore, not worth arguing.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

True, but so what? You're numbers are way off too, but that's besides the point. It would be more like the 9 million dollar man paying 39% and the $50,000 paying 20% in income tax. I agree that the middle class gets royally fucked by the tax system and that's why I think everybody should get a huge tax cut and a ton of programs should be cut. BUt that's another topic and I think this one is through.

They're not really off by much.

 

Take into account deductions.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Why not give the lower class a higher percentage of tax cuts, considering they already pay less than the rich guys to begin with? The income from their tax returns is relatively nil; why not allow them to sustain their lives a lot easier?

 

Because fair or not, rich people affect the economy way more than poor people do. If Poor people have more money, they will help themselves. If rich people have more money, they can invest it better and help the economy.

Sure, if you believe in trickle-down economics.

 

However, in our current state of incredible oversupply, how would giving the tax cuts to those who (over)produce these products help our economic problems?

[Guest Some Guy]

By the way, I'd like to take the time and say I've been much more mentally fulfilled by debating with you than disputing Rob.

 

Stay on the boards and we could have some fun debates

Thanks. Rob is a lot easier to argue against than I am, all he really has is religion to back up many of his beliefs.

 

I'll be around as much as I can. I only left because I was really busy. THIs week might me more of what's to come from me or I might disapear again. I don't know.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Ya know, IDEALLY, corporations that save an extra 50+million would be investing it into our economy and helping out the less fortunate, but that is just not what happens. More and More these days you read about corporations take their business and money out of the american economy and open plants and warehouses overseas, that of course helps us over here not one bit. I wouldn't mind corporate welfare so much if there were provisions to go along with it, but the current system is just crap.

[Guest Brian]

I got no sold.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

We still love you, Brian

 

You made great points either way.

[Guest EricMM]

Do you really believe that with the billions of dollars going towards to oil industry, the hydrogen power industry wouldn't become cost efficent in a few years?

[Guest Brian]

Yes. Because the technology won't develop that fast in part, and because the economy is still to oil driven for hydrogen power to make that big of an impact that quickly.