Taxes and the Bush Administration

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Very interesting read with these two articles...I happen to agree with poll and would rather have a balance budget that more tax cuts...personally i did not really benefit from the tax cuts except for the advance little loan they gave us all...it wasn't like it was free money or anything...just an advance.

Bushes, Cheneys Pay Smaller Share of 2003 Income in Federal Taxes Than Year Before
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney reaped tax benefits last year from the cuts that they pushed through Congress and that Democrats have criticized as a boon to the rich.
The government's top two executives, both wealthy men, paid smaller shares of their income in federal taxes in 2003 than in the year before, according to returns released Tuesday by the White House.

And:

AP Poll: Most People Prefer Balanced Budget to Tax Cuts, Don't Believe Taxes Have Decreased

By almost a 2-1 margin, Americans prefer balancing the nation's budget to cutting taxes, according to an Associated Press poll, even though many believe their overall tax burden has risen despite tax cuts over the past three years.
Both the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation and the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have come to the conclusion that the federal tax burden is easing for the average American family. The Tax Foundation suggests that federal income taxes are lower for Americans than they have been for almost four decades.

The perception of many that they're paying more overall is no surprise to Iris Lav, deputy director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"Federal tax cuts largely benefit higher income people," Lav said. "In the meantime, people face tax increases on sales, cigarettes, gasoline."





[Edited on 4-13-2004 by worldwatcher]




posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 07:59 AM
link   
jeez louise!!!
no one has an opinion on taxes with the deadline for filing your taxes so close??? budget and taxes are also an important issue with the elections....tsk..tsk..tsk..



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Ok, WW I'll reply and give some thoughts,

Quoting WW,
"President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney reaped tax benefits last year from the cuts that they pushed through Congress and that Democrats have criticized as a boon to the rich.
The government's top two executives, both wealthy men, paid smaller shares of their income in federal taxes in 2003 than in the year before, according to returns released Tuesday by the White House."

President Bush and his wife filed jointly thus declaring ALL of their adjusted gross income as a couple of $822,126 and paid $227,490 in federal income taxes, or about 28%. Fairly straightforward, and nothing out of the ordinary.

Since we only have one President it will be necessary to compare John Kerry the presumed nominee and his wife Teresa Heinz in order to put into perspective the fair amount of the Bush joint tax contribution.

Senator John Kerry decided to file seperately as is legal but it does not fairly declare the joint income nor assets he has access to through his wife. Kerry reported $395,000 in taxable income with $90,575 in federal income taxes paid, or about 23% of his income.

Taking the Heinz fortune into account however paints a very different story. Lets assume a reported value of $800,000,000 invested at a return of 8% average return, that equals $64,000,000 dollars, now lets tax that at the claimed advantagious rate of 28% that the Bushs paid.
The total at 28% equals $17,920,000, lets add Johns share at the now higher rate of 28% and see what we get.........
Hmm....$110,600 + $17,920,000 = $18,030,000

Looking at the current math and method of filing it appears the Bush tax cuts have greatly benifitted Kerrys bottom line.
The big question of course is not knowing what the Kerrys paid as a couple, I seriously doubt it was anywhere near $18,030,000 or even 1/2, or even 1/4, or even 1/8 that amount - of course we'll never get that answer will we?

The other point I would like to make is that if the Bushs filed seperately we would be hearing from the media and the left that they were trying to hide something, why is that not an issue on the other side ? hmmm.............

One only has to compare european socialist democracies(sic) high taxation and the resulting economic stagnation(GDP growth of 1/2 to 1% if lucky) combined with unemployment well above 10% to see that reduced taxation is the way to go if you want a vibrant economy in this country.

As far as the deficit is concerned, I would much rather see reduced government size and spending as a response to the deficit. In the long run initiatives should be forced on our polititians to get the government below 15% Gdp, this will never happen if we allow them to in any way get their hands on our money first, rebates and incentives are just another house of cards to play with as far as washington is concerned, The ONLY control we have is to keep our money.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   
this is not just about Bush and Cheney only, of course Kerry benefited....all the rich people benefited what was the number... the 109 million rich americans saw benefits with the tax cuts but more than half of the americans in this country didn't benefit at all...the population of this country is about 290 million

Maybe you think I am Kerry supporter or something, but let me assure you, I have no confidence in Kerry, He is the same as Bush, skull and bones brothers, same agendas, just marketed differently.

Bush claims tax benefits for all americans but only the rich benefited.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I'm guessing here that your arguing here for the Kerry Tax Plan versus the Bush Tax Plan?


seekerof



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I'm guessing here that your arguing here for the Kerry Tax Plan versus the Bush Tax Plan?


seekerof


again, where do you people get the idea that I support Kerry from? Just because I bash Bush doesn't make me a Kerry follower or supporter.

btw, I like this guy

www.votenader.com...
Nader:
Wants a fair tax where the wealthiest and corporations pay their fair share, tax wealth more than work, and tax activities we dislike more than necessities
The complexity and distortions of the federal tax code produces distributions of tax incidence and payroll tax burdens that are skewed in favor of the wealthy and the corporations further garnished by tax shelters, insufficient enforcement and other avoidances.

Corporate tax contributions as a percent of the overall federal revenue stream have been declining for fifty years and now stand at 7.4% despite massive record profits. A fundamental reappraisal of our tax laws should start with a principle that taxes should apply first to behavior and conditions we favor least and pinch basic necessities least such as the clearly addictive industries (alcohol and tobacco), pollution, speculation, gambling, extreme luxuries, taxing work or instead of the 5% to 7% sales tax food, furniture, clothing or books.

Tiny taxes (a fraction of the conventional retail sales percentage) on stock, bond, and derivative transactions can produce tens of billions of dollars a year and displace some of the taxes on work and consumer essentials. Sol Price, founder of the Price Clubs (now merged into Costco) is one of several wealthy people in the last century who have urged a tax on wealth. Again, it can be at a very low rate but raise significant revenues. Wealth above a quite comfortable minimum is described as tangible and intangible assets. The present adjustment of Henry George's celebrated land tax could also be considered.

Over a thousand wealthy Americans have declared, in a remarkable conflict against interest , that the estate tax, which now applies to less than 2 percent of the richest estates, should be retained. The signers of this declaration included William Gates, Sr., Warren Buffett and George Soros. Mr. Nader does not believe that “unearned income” (dividends, interest, capital gains) should be taxed lower than earned income, or work, inasmuch as one involves passive income, including inheritances and windfalls, while the latter involves active effort with a higher proportion of middle and lower income workers relying on and working each day, some under unsafe conditions, for these earning.


[Edited on 4-14-2004 by worldwatcher]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
It was a speculative question worldwatcher.
I don't think that what I said implied that you were a Kerrymite or one who supported him.

The question was given because at this moment, there is a choice and that choice will become more evident the closer to November that we American's get. As such, both political agents are offering two distinct options, in regards to taxes, hence my question.


seekerof



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Well yes thats the idea, to benefit net tax PAYERS, not consumers of those very same dollars.

109 million rich people, by whose definition? Is it that family of four where both the husband and wife work to make $110,000 thou a year with barely enough left over to save for their childrens advanced education, because thats the defintion I've seen by the income levels quoted by the opposition to the tax reductions. Maybe they (dems) need to redefine the definition to mean the Super rich - which there are only a few million of, it would resonate better with normal people that may own a small business that are currently lumped in with the widely ill-defined rich beneficiarys of tax reduction.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Whose plan do you favor?



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I must add after reading the reply about Nader tax platform,
The fairest tax of them all is a consumption tax on all transactions, with a rebate to those under the poverty rate of income - no other exemptions or exclusions. Spend more pay more, Spend less pay less.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Bush and Cheney aren't alone. I paid less taxes last year as well though it saddens me to know that it might have cost Ted Kennedy the ivory handled backscratcher he's been wanting.

Look, plain and simply arguing to allow the government to take more taxes from the population is arguing to give more power to the very people we all seem to detest. I agree government has its function but come on! Are any of you really fooled into thinking they could do a lot more with less if they just stopped raking so much off the top for admin costs?


Oh and of the super rich whom many of you argue should pay their fair share, many have their money sheltered from taxes anyway. Why do you think they support high taxing liberals?

Personally, I think 28% of someone's earnings is way too damn much. I'd like to see that in the are of 17% flat tax for everybody except those falling under poverty level. The rich still pay more because 17% of a million is a hell of a lot more than 17% of a thousand but we aren't punishing acheivment anymore than we are rewarding sloth.

Oh and one more suggestion for taxes, make them due on April 15th and have elections on April 16th.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Illusionary savings fit well with an illusion of credability in this president, no?

The "tax cuts" that most working Americans have received under the Bush administration are actually not tax cuts, but tax shifts. Here are the five most fundamental:

Tax Shift #1: From Federal Taxes to State Taxes. Since 2002, state governments have closed $200 billion in budget gaps by raising taxes and cutting services. During those same years, newly enacted federal tax cuts delivered about as much money—$197.3 billion—in new tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans (households making more than $337,000 a year). In essence, Bush chose to force tax hikes in the states in order to give tax breaks to multi-millionaires.

Tax Shift #2: From Progressive to Regressive Taxes. President Bush has focused on reducing income tax rates. But 71 percent of us pay more in payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare) than in income taxes. Payroll taxes are regressive: high-income people pay a lower tax rate than low-income people. The opposite is true of progressive taxes, such as federal income, corporate and estate taxes. Since the early '60s, this trio of progressive tax rates has dropped precipitously. But the regressive payroll tax rate has risen.

Tax Shift #3: From Taxes on Wealth to Taxes on Work. Politicians talk about the virtues of hard work, but their tax policies speak otherwise. Between 1980 and today, the main tax rate on work income—the payroll tax—has jumped 25 percent. In the same period, top tax rates on investment income and large inheritances have been cut between 31 and 79 percent.

This tax shift from wealth to work means that a person who derives millions of dollars in dividend income solely from his investments now pays a marginal tax rate of just 15 percent. Compare that with a schoolteacher with an adjusted gross income over $28,400 who pays a payroll tax rate of 15.3 percent, plus a marginal income tax rate of 28 percent, for a total marginal rate of more than 43 percent!

Tax Shift #4: From Corporations to Individuals. Corporate lobbyists complain that the United States overtaxes business. But since 1962, the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations has declined by two-thirds, while the share contributed by individuals and unincorporated small business has risen 17 percent.

Tax Shift #5: From Current Taxpayers to Future Generations. President Bush sold his tax cuts using the line, "It’s your money." He left out the other side ofthe story: "It’s your children’s debt." According to Citizens for Tax Justice, between 2002 and 2007, Bush’s fiscal policies will impose $13,000 in additional debt on each man, woman and child in America.

Because of this tax shift, any "cuts" that ordinary taxpayers get will be lost to state and local tax increases and services cuts. Even the "married with children" families who have been thought to be big beneficiaries are losers after the tax shifts. The real winners in three years of Bush "tax cuts" are the very wealthy, those with incomes of more than $500,000. For them, these tax cuts are real windfalls. For the rest of us, though, they end up being burdens.



Remeber this one: $197 Billion in Tax Cuts to Top 1% of US Taxpayers as Big as States’ Budget Shortfalls of $200 Billion

It can't get any simpler, or was I the only one who $hit a brick after seeing the increase in my property & school taxes?


United for a Fair Economy



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher

Bush claims tax benefits for all americans but only the rich benefited.


Wrong. If you cared to look at the numbers and/or percentages you would know that the tax break was for everyone.

Total Effects of the final version of the Bush tax plan

Bottom 60% will recieve a 70% cut

whereas the

Top 10% recieve a 14% cut.

Put it to you this way. Take two people and apply the same tax cut (we'll say 10%).

Person A makes 25k a year

Person B makes 250k a year.

Person A gets a cut of 2,500 bucks

Person B gets a cut of 25,000 bucks.

Enter you folks to say "LOOK, the right are getting a tax cut of 10 times as much as the poor. It's a tax cut for the rich."

I personally disagree with the tax cut because I would rather get government spending under control before we do anything with taxation.







[Edited on 14-4-2004 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Wrong. If you cared to look at the numbers and/or percentages you would know that the tax break was for everyone.


umm..you can keep your numbers, they mean jack to me and my finances...we simply do not agree. Maybe you benefited, but i didn't and i won't go further in discussing my finances. Plus why are you showing me 2001 numbers, i can't make heads or tails of the information you provided, perhaps a link at least will help me understand.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
BT, you can not ignore the fact that just as people mistakenly believed that the inflated stock market would just keep on and on as the Clinton/Gore administration wished, State governments did the same as they kept increasing spending in a wave of euphoria. The cuts you refer to are the very same states refusing to get their budgets in line with reality, lest the current state representitives lose their jobs because they can't deliver the largess promised. Let me guess, you live in the State of N.Y. which I choose to leave at the spry age of 18 because I could see the writing on the wall as early as 1975. What a depressing place that has turned out to be I can't stand to be there any more than 3 days at a time now. I'd rather live under a bridge than return.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
WW, If you did not benefit it is simply because you were not a net taxpayer at the time. these reductions were specifically for people that paid taxes on the federal side. They were not intended as a handout to people that had recieved net tax benefits as largess.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
The Tax cuts are not about giving back your money or jump starting the economy. It's all about keeping the USA in a defict so there will be goverment insured high yeld bonds for the wealthy to invest in without risk.

Old money wants high yeld low risk returns on investment.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   
EW, I can go with you on that point to a certain extent, its the bloated governmemt in concert with the rich wanting to make a passive buck, I can see that happening. As I said earliar in this posting people keep letting the government control their money there is no end in sight for this scam to continue - eh. The only way for this to end is for the people to refuse to pay for endless thought up needy programs that justify big government. When the revenues run out or rebellion happens this will come to end one way or another.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   
First off, I paid less this year although making more. Still, the percentage is too great.

Second, while the top 10% pay 70% of the income tax in this country, the lower 50% pay only 3% of it. Be realistic, my money savings won't get you hired directly, hereas those who have the ability to hire you are the ones you'd want to benefit.

One more thing, in case you missed it; I am in the lower 50%. I can't hire you.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Wrong. If you cared to look at the numbers and/or percentages you would know that the tax break was for everyone.


umm..you can keep your numbers, they mean jack to me and my finances...we simply do not agree. Maybe you benefited, but i didn't and i won't go further in discussing my finances. Plus why are you showing me 2001 numbers, i can't make heads or tails of the information you provided, perhaps a link at least will help me understand.


Hmm, I seem to have found a different table than I have seen in the past.

here is the new one I've found. I can't figure out what happened to the other tables. I've seen them many times.


Tax table





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join