Bush Men Can't Relate to Everyday living

Sorry Leveller, had missed your comments...

" But you state that the right wing is the advocate for this. Get real. This was a Socialist Labour proposition. "

I actually state that the right were responsible for assisted places, your in total agreement with what I said.

As for tax cuts helping the economy try these quotes on for size...

"Legendary currency speculator and philanthropist George Soros, whose wealth is estimated at $6bn, also dismissed the tax cuts.

He said they would not revive the US economy in the short-term but were only aimed at helping the rich get richer.

"This move is designed not to have much impact now.

It's designed to have an impact over an extended period and it's basically using the recession to redistribute income to the wealthy," Mr Soros said in an interview with financial news network CNBC. "

news.bbc.co.uk...


Just reviving the thread because I discovered this article, which seemed to summarise what I was trying to say originally...

Originally posted by dom


"Legendary currency speculator and philanthropist George Soros, whose wealth is estimated at $6bn, also dismissed the tax cuts.

I'm glad he's not making the decisions. I guess when you're rich like that, you can put politics ahead of the whole countries well-being but the ones who depend on the everyday economic strength can't afford anymore government spending increases as much as we need business to fire back up again. I fail to see how a rich government and poor business community solves this. If our government were efficient and really lacked proper funding, I'd be on your side of this but how can you defend an entity whos waste is 73% of every dollar in administrative cost and corruption?

Dom, you argue so hard against the US government on every other thread and how we need to fix things. Money is power and we give it enough and more. You understand that the US budget for 10 years is 128 trillion dollars? the tax cut at its most is 750 billion but it looks more like 350 billion now. This cut will totally relieve the poor in the US of any tax burden whatsoever and yes it will let a lot of wealthy people keep their money too. If you give a tax cut, it has to, by definition, apply to tax-payers. If this is unacceptable then I really have only one question. How much is enough? I need a number. How much do we have to take from those who earn it? Just name it because I would like to know. Do we lose half? 60%, 90%? How long to we realize that if its not worth it to work or start a business, there will be no source of income and thus no source of tax?

Answer me this, if my family can run on a budget, and use some credit when a little unforseen crisis comes up and then repay it when things get better, why can't I ask my government to set itself on a budget too? If they are so worried about the economy, why has their spending increased even passed the purposed budget? If taxing and giving to the poor really helps them , then why after 50 years of this do we still have poor? Because only 27cents of everydollar slated for them gets to them. Hell, most charities have a 75% delivery rate to the poor, so why can't the government? No one wants the poor out on the street, we want the people responsible for mis-using funds meant for them out on the street. We want an end to corruption and (for old Fritz Hollings) it's exasserbation.

Efficiency is the key. Businesses do it or they fail but for some reason our government is allowed to run willy-nilly through 1 billion dollars every 8.2 hours without any accountability and when we threaten to do something they start their scare tactics about taking away social security and medicare when all they really could do is cut down on ice and booze for Ted and let them bring their own. Wonder what that would save on the budget?

In a capitalistic society, only a good supply/demand ratio can create a robust economy. Thats highschool level economics over here. This issue isn't foggy at all. We know how it works and responds to stimulus and tradgedy. We've got hundreds of years of history on it and two great examples in the last 50 years. So Mr. Soros need worry not, the economy will and is already recovering. We did get a 40 billion dollar cut last year and look how the economy has used it? We'll get this old mule pulling again, she just needs the feedbag strapped on for a while.

This quote was one that worried me more, I should have really put it in my message...

"Mr Buffett, listed by Forbes as America's second-richest man, said he already pays about the same income tax rate as his receptionist - about 30%.

But with the planned dividend tax cut, he could end up paying a mere 3% in income taxes, which he said "seems a bit light". "

I only argue against the idea of having a tax cut to help out rich people. That just seems a little unnecessary to be totally honest.

The wasted money through administration and corruption seems ridiculous to me. Why don't any of the governments run on a campaign policy of sorting out administration and corruption costs?

As for reviving the economy, economies go up and down, I'm not sure how much this tax cut is going to affect things, I'm not an economist. However, it seems that two fairly worldy business men are saying that this won't immediately revive the economy but will have an effect in the long term. But at what cost? Why reduce the tax bills of rich investors from 30% to 3%? I just think that sounds a bit like Dubya helping out his mates.

Dom give it up.

America is great.

America will be trashed by the rest of the world.

America will be destroyed and the rest of the world become slaves.

You'll have your way, but when you get it you will wish you didn't.

As for can Bush relate to everday living...CAN YOU FARM?

CAN YOU BUILD SKYSCRAPERS?

Why should you compare Bush any different.

CAN YOU SPEAK IN FRONT OF HALF THE WORLD?

No.

You can't even feed yourselves if there weren't a super market.

Stop bi.tching about Bush being too "pampered" we're all too pampered.

You're right you know, from now on I won't question any of the US governments actions. I'll just assume that because the US was created by God, anything it does is right. Pah. I don't want to see the US destroyed, I just want to see it practice what it preaches with an ethical foreign policy.

It might also be nice if domestically, the US didn't just increase the gap between rich and poor year on year. But I guess you prefer it that way... whatever. It doesn't really affect me, and I really don't have any right whatsoever to discuss US internal affairs I suppose, so I'll stick my nose out of it from now on.

Actually Dom, I am attacking our government on this issue. Its too big and too controlling and too intrusive. Mr. Soros and I have obviously heard different takes on the tax cut. I agree that 3% is too light while some pay 15%, 27%, 33% that make less than 100,000 a year if what he says is true. However, its a fact that most rich , and I mean over a million a year, find numerous loopholes to avoid taxation in the first place. Thats what we need to stop.

From what I've seen the people from the poverty level to about 40,000 a year will get the largest % cut. Now, like I said, even a smaller % of a million a year is more than a larger % of 40,000 (simple math) but small businesses are the ones hurting. It may look like a fortune for one to make 250,000 a year but then you add in capital, overhead, insurance, worker's benefits plus a whole slew of other things that come out of that and the owner might get away with 50,000 a year. Now, his business has to pay tax on the gross amount and the he has to pay it again on the take-home part of it and his employees have to pay again on what they make. See how many times the same dollar was taxed? Then, everything we buy gets taxed again then we pay tax on property and vehicles. When its all said and done, for all his late nights and stress the government ultimatly ends up with the larger % of his efforts and the efforts of his employees and I think this is one area that Pres. Bush has been weak in. He needs to really help the small businessman.

As for the long/short term argument, doing nothing won't have an effect either way so if we get a good study long term growth and not a huge explosion, economically thats more sound. Huge economic explosions almost always end with the harder fall, ie the 90s dotcom explosion and then the reallity check we are in now. I really doubt that there is an honest way to spur an explosive growth. It usually happens from false earnings reports..ie..Enron from '95 to 2000. That lie multiplied every year from the time the "prepay" which was really a loan was made by Citi-corp. A lot of people don't put much stock in Alan Greenspan but when he began talking about this in 1997, I became alarmed because I knew he was right and no one else would listen.

Looking back I'm sure his accuracy is no consolation to him and he would have rather seen it back off slowly rather than hit the wall at full speed. I was a die hard democrat then and even I began to question what we were doing economically. We kept adding all the gains and it was just too big no other way to say it. My wife and I argued a lot about our spending in those days. She would never believe that it would happen because she hadn't seen it in her career. She didn't remember the late 70s and I really barely do. She wouldn't believe we could be attacked by terrorist either and I'm sorry to say I was proved right about that in less time than I thought.

The only thing I was wrong about in that discussion was my prediction that if it happened, that would be it for the old USA. I expected total financial breakdown even as I watched the towers fall. Thats why I'm so optimistic about this country now. I never expected to see my fellow Americans take it in stride and keep going. I was under the media influence which I've now seen to be false.

The economy usually tracks in a havesine wave form when you plot it long term. We see the high end spikes reflected just a pronounced in the low end so the more slowly and study the economy rises, the less harsh the decline and trough. The idea is to straighten the curve as much as possible. I have a minor in business and econ and put a lot of time in trying to grasp this concept along with labor economics which is a nightmare in itself.

When looked at through a scientific view, which I try to do, we get a baseline of what affects the economy. Now, last night I hear Alan Combs on Fox New's Hannity and Combs ( Combs is the liberal view) talking about the Dems also have a tax cut plan so really, both sides and everyone sees what is needed. The only people I really here against it are the super-wealthy who find loop-holes for their money so taxation isn't really an issue in the same light as it is for the family trying to juggle both parents working and educating their children.

Ok, I didn't realise I was being bated by an banned member of ATS, so I'll just briefly comment.

Yeah, if you can afford an accountant you'll get off pretty lightly. I think it's the same for any bueracracy heavy system of taxation. But those loopholes could (and should) be shut.

Sounds like you know a lot of what you're talking about astro, but I'd still assume that you'd prefer for Bush to be reducing spending on the military etc. rather than ploughing ahead with a huge budget deficit?

Just some info I got on the actual tax-cut which jts passed and the president is expected to sign it. For the most part, it seems to be geared more toward low-income and small businessmen than the rich. I'm glad to see Bush finally start to put some of his attention toward spuring growth of small businesses. Thats a sure way to avoid fascism and monopolies rather than sueing successful businesses and taking over their revenues like our last administration. This helps level the playing field for good, healthy competition without stealing profits under the guise of the monopoly laws.

Here's some quotes along with a full story including remarks of those against it who, from what they say, just should have read it first.

customwire.ap.org...


"Under the legislation, the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains would fall to 15 percent this year. Low-income taxpayers would pay 5 percent, falling to zero in 2008. Barring further congressional action, today's higher rates would return the following year.

Other provisions aimed at individuals and families would start retroactively on Jan. 1 and expire in 2005. These included reduced taxes for married couples, expanding the lowest tax bracket and preventing more taxpayers from paying the alternative minimum tax.

There also would be a $1,000 tax credit for each of up to two children for the next two years, an increase from the current $600. Grassley said 25 million families would qualify.

Businesses won two temporary tax breaks designed to encourage immediate investments. Small companies could expense up to $100,000 in new equipment investments through 2005, and businesses could depreciate more of their assets sooner through 2004."

"This is no victory for people who work every day because eventually this tax giveaway to the wealthy will have to be paid for," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. "You better believe that when the tab comes, it's the working people of this country who will be stuck with it."

Just to quote the bit you didn't quote.

Interesting, sounds like some of the things are indeed aimed at low-income families, but the dividend and capital gains tax cut is aimed firmly at the rich and super-rich. Seeing as you've already said that low income families produce so little tax revenew, and the rich provide a great deal more, how much of this tax cut do you think directly benfits rich people (as a $ percentage)?

According to this article, more than half of the $ value of the tax cuts will go to the richest 1%...

www.ctj.org...

"By the end of the decade, more than half of the President's proposed new tax reductions would go to the top one percent."

So what Bush is effectively doing, is announcing some cheap but morally good tax cuts for the poor, while quietly passing through the dividend and capital gains tax cuts, which are the most expensive and just happen to suit his rich friends.

Ahh well, your country, if you're happy with that then that's fine.

Yeah, they have been ranting on that since a tax cut to spur the economy has been proposed. Its merely scare tactics and when researched has no basis in fact. Their playbook is an old one with really no new plays. They preach class envy and scare old people to death. Its in their best interest to keep us all divided.

The wording of the bill itself counters all their allegations. Taxpayers will get the tax cut. If non-taxpayers got the money, it would be welfare no would it not? We already fund that to the hilt and we have healthy people who could earn their own way (who make a personal decision to remain un-educated and lazy ) who make a career out of waiting for money someone else had made. No one in this country is held down. For some, they just aren't willing to put in the work it takes to be self sufficient. They want to either start at the top or not start at all. The mistake is the ideology that being born makes us somehow entitled to a preconceived standard of living. Poeple like this in the US are spoiled, I will admit. Its a great number of us too. But, the economy doesn't benefit from these people it actually suffers from them.

I'm all for not letting anyone starve even if it is by their own choice, but when our goal is to spur economic growth, we have to put it in the most logical place to do that. Again, we are back to the principles of basic economics. Its all about cause and effect.

I realize that people who make over 500, 000 a year don't really hurt financially the way someone who makes less than 100, 000 or at least thats my perception but if they are towing the most of the tax burden then by defenition, a tax cut would almost have to affect them too.

Look at it like this; if 10 people eat dinner at a restaurant, the bill comes. Its 100 dollars

The first 4 people pay nothing. They eat for free.
The next 2 only pay a 5 dollars each.
The next 2 pay 10 dollars each.
The next person pays 20 dollars.
The last person pays the remaining 50 dollars.

Now the next time they eat, the bill comes but since they have been such good paying customers, the owner only charges them 80 dollars.

The first four still eat for free.

The next 2 only now pay 4 dollars each.

The next two pay only 8 dollars each.

The next person pays 15 dollars.

And the last person pays the remaining 41 dollars.

The person that paid 15 dollars is mad because he only saved 5 dollars while the person who had paid 50 dollars saved 9 dollars. The two below him are mad at both of them because they only saved 2 dollars each and conversly the two below them are ticked at everybody ahead of them because they only saved a buck each. The bottom four cry the most foul because as non-payers, they got no savings from the discount yet still ate the same. As a result, all 9 take it out on the tenth who, being a bit put out just doesn't show up the next night. Guess what's missing when the bill comes? Yeah, his 41 dollars which now has to be absorbed by the remaining 9.

I hope I got that right. I formatted my drive for a new OS yesterday and had to do it from memory. Don't get me wrong, I'm one of those who pays the 5 dollars but I want the 50 dollar guy to keep coming to dinner.