bush's speech at the Timken plant in Canton, Ohio, last year, touting his tax relief plan, praising the high productivity of the Timken plant and how they care for their employees.
It makes me more sad to see the economy fail than it makes me happy to see Bush fail. No real reason to rejoice until he is voted out of office...
tweedyburd
05-18-2004, 12:11 PM
The economy is "failing"? Have you people just not been paying attention to the news? There have been like 10 (or is it more?) straight months of growth (GDP), and the economy added more than half a million jobs in March and April. That's more jobs created in two months than pretty much the whole of last year.
Of course jobs will be circulated and lost because that's the nature of any new economy. And don't kid yourself into believing that Kerry, who is a free-trader through and through, will make any drastic changes in how our trade policy is carried out. His posturings on tax incentives to corporations to stay within the country are just an election year stunt. In actuality, they would do more to hurt American industries, encouraging consumers to buy the cheaper goods coming in from Asia which are not fined with an import tax.
It's unfortunate that perception has always played a bigger role than reality when it comes to the economy in an election year.
sppunk
05-18-2004, 12:30 PM
The economy has not rebounded. Jobs have been created, but some of those numbers aren't factoring in how many jobs have actually been lost.
Debaser
05-18-2004, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by tweedyburd
The economy is "failing"? Have you people just not been paying attention to the news? There have been like 10 (or is it more?) straight months of growth (GDP), and the economy added more than half a million jobs in March and April. That's more jobs created in two months than pretty much the whole of last year.
Of course jobs will be circulated and lost because that's the nature of any new economy. And don't kid yourself into believing that Kerry, who is a free-trader through and through, will make any drastic changes in how our trade policy is carried out. His posturings on tax incentives to corporations to stay within the country are just an election year stunt. In actuality, they would do more to hurt American industries, encouraging consumers to buy the cheaper goods coming in from Asia which are not fined with an import tax.
It's unfortunate that perception has always played a bigger role than reality when it comes to the economy in an election year.
after three years of job losses, you now are hanging your hat on just a couple months of growth?
Going hand-in-hand with this recent job growth, average hourly wage and salary income is still on the decline. Which clues into economists that this is most likely temporary.
It's unfortunate that there's a false perception that a conservative president means a better economy. If you look up the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, it is fact that democratic presidents always have presided over higher average monthly job growth over republican presidents.
Originally posted by tweedyburd
and the economy added more than half a million jobs in March and April. That's more jobs created in two months than pretty much the whole of last year.
Aha and last year was a pretty shitty year.
Debaser
05-18-2004, 12:52 PM
But back to the topic at hand. This Ohio Plant closing shows precisely how Bush's tax cut for the rich is a failure.
Just one year after Bush's cuts taxes to benifit the wealthy (such as the Timken family), they layoff 1300 workers to make even more money. great. Trickle down economics, riiiiiight.
Nimrod
05-18-2004, 01:04 PM
UH, please desribe how these tax cuts were to "benefit the wealthy."
I_was_aborted
05-18-2004, 01:11 PM
Sure as fuck wasn't a benefit to the middle class.....
NeverTonightA
05-18-2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
UH, please desribe how these tax cuts were to "benefit the wealthy."
when you pay a smaller percentage of taxes (i'm not talking about amount) and you get most of that back, its pretty self-explanitory.
Debaser
05-18-2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
UH, please desribe how these tax cuts were to "benefit the wealthy."
shit, have your taxes gone down? do you know anybody who's taxes have gone down?
I'll tell you one thing, I did my taxes for 2003 and the overall calculated percentage that I paid was around 26-27% according to the turbo tax program. I just read an article where Cheney released his 2003 tax record and his percentage was 15%. Cheney. The millionaire. A person that is in a lot better financial position to pay a more fair share of the tax. And that tax refund? what a fucking joke that shit was. it wasn't a tax refund--it was a tax refund ADVANCE.
facts are that half of all Americans will receive less than $100 from the tax cut in 2003, but at the same time Americans making $1 million or more will receive $93,500.
Over the next four years, the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers will receive just 9 percent of all the tax cuts, while just the top one percent receives 39 percent of the tax cuts. The tax cut benefits flowing to the top 1% far outpace the 23% share of federal taxes they now pay.
FairEconomy.org (http://www.ufenet.org/research/BushStimulus.html)
Let's go back to Ohio.
W.R. "Tim" Timken - a top Bush fundraiser and the man who decided to shut down the factory. Having earned more than $2.6 million last year, Timken stands to receive $59,000 in new tax breaks from President Bush this year - Timken also happens to have raised $600,000 for the President in one night. By contrast, 89% of Ohio residents will receive less than $100 by 2006 from the latest Bush tax cuts.
Citizens for Tax Justice (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwboh.pdf)
Nimrod
05-18-2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
Let's go back to Ohio.
W.R. "Tim" Timken - a top Bush fundraiser and the man who decided to shut down the factory. Having earned more than $2.6 million last year, Timken stands to receive $59,000 in new tax breaks from President Bush this year - Timken also happens to have raised $600,000 for the President in one night. By contrast, 89% of Ohio residents will receive less than $100 by 2006 from the latest Bush tax cuts.
Citizens for Tax Justice (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwboh.pdf) When there are tax cuts, those who make more should get more of a cut.
If someone earns 30,000/yr and taxes are cut by 10%, they should get less dollar amount back than someone earning 300,000. That's faulty math there.
Debaser
05-18-2004, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
When there are tax cuts, those who make more should get more of a cut.
If someone earns 30,000/yr and taxes are cut by 10%, they should get less dollar amount back than someone earning 300,000. That's faulty math there.
My middle income tax bracket is making me pay 27% in taxes while millionaire VP Dick Cheney is paying 15%. Fuck that.
but since you bring up "faulty math" what about "faulty logic"? why are the super rich getting more tax cuts than the middle class?
Nimrod
05-18-2004, 03:28 PM
Where is this Cheney info? Where is his tax information? How much did he make? How much did he donate?
You're completely speaking in the abstract, and then throw out "facts" like:
"facts are that half of all Americans will receive less than $100 from the tax cut in 2003, but at the same time Americans making $1 million or more will receive $93,500."
That right there is bullshit math. If everyone gets a tax percentage break, <i>no fucking shit</i> the people who make more money get more of a rebate!
sppunk
05-18-2004, 03:29 PM
His tax information is public record.
Debaser
05-18-2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
Where is this Cheney info? Where is his tax information? How much did he make? How much did he donate?
You're completely speaking in the abstract, and then throw out "facts" like:
"facts are that half of all Americans will receive less than $100 from the tax cut in 2003, but at the same time Americans making $1 million or more will receive $93,500."
That right there is bullshit math. If everyone gets a tax percentage break, <i>no fucking shit</i> the people who make more money get more of a rebate!
denial is not just a river in egypt.
Debaser
05-18-2004, 04:03 PM
Why Your Tax Cut Doesn't Add Up by Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4660655/)
Bush has been open about each item he wants: lowering taxes on capital income, such as dividends and capital gains; creating two big new income-sheltering investment plans; eliminating the estate tax. But he's not been at all forthcoming about the ultimate effect of his program. If Bush gets what he wants, the income tax will become a misnomer—it will really be a salary tax. Almost all income taxes would come from paychecks—80 percent of income for most families, less than half for the top 1 percent. Meanwhile taxpayers receiving dividends, interest and capital gains, known collectively as investment income, would have a much lighter burden than salary earners—or maybe none at all. And here's the topper. In the name of preserving family farms and keeping small businesses in the family, Bush would eliminate the estate tax and create a new class of landed aristocrats who could inherit billions tax-free, invest the money, watch it compound tax-free and hand it down tax-free to their heirs.
the article fairly critizes kerry's tax plans as well if you will read it.
Nimrod
05-18-2004, 04:16 PM
Also, I find it funny that Liberals want to tax when a father gives something to his son. "Estate taxes" are total bullshit.
Debaser
05-18-2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
Also, I find it funny that Liberals want to tax when a father gives something to his son. "Estate taxes" are total bullshit.
Nimrod, you really don't even fully understand the estate tax do you?
FAQ
Q: Isn't the estate tax a form of "double taxation"? First people have to pay income tax on earnings and then they pay again when they die because of the estate tax?
A considerable portion of most estates are assets that have appreciated during the decedent's lifetime on which no income taxes have ever been paid, since inheritances are exempt from income tax and capital gains taxes are only paid on assets that are sold or transferred. Economists James Poterba and Scott Weisbenner, using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances, estimate that unrealized capital gains make up about 37% of the value of estates worth more than $1 million and about 56% of estates worth more than $10 million. Without an estate tax, assets can appreciate untaxed and be passed from generation to generation with no tax at all. The estate tax is an integral part of our progressive tax code and taxes assets that would otherwise escape taxation.
Q: A "death tax" is just wrong. Why should people be taxed when they die? Why should the IRS claim taxes from a family when a loved one dies?
The estate tax is not a "death" tax. It is a tax on assets that are given to heirs of an estate. Without the estate tax, accumulated wealth could be passed from generation to generation, leading to huge concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few: another aristocracy. Numerous political theorists and philosophers have been concerned about the effects of concentrated wealth upon a democracy, like Theodore Roosevelt who worried about the "perpetuation of great and undesirable concentrations of control in a relatively few individuals over the employment and welfare of many, many others."
An inheritance is unearned income. It is a windfall from having "chosen" the right parents. Andrew Carnegie noted that the "parent who leaves his son enormous wealth generally deadens the talents and energies of the son, and leads him to lead a less useful and less worthy life than he otherwise would." We have ended the right of indigent mothers with children to welfare and require them to work. Why should the children of wealthy people be exempt?
please. go read more here.
FairEstateTax.org (http://www.ombwatch.org/estatetax/afet_article.phtml?ombfile=http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/749/1/119/)
besides, what the fuck do you care about the estate tax? everybody that has less than $1 million dollars worth of estate is exempt! kerry wants to raise the exemption to several million. bush wants to eliminate the entire tax so that the rich get richer from untaxed appreciation as their estate is passed down generations.
Its funny how you argue for bush issues that don't benefit you cuz your not rich.
From the newsweek article, that you apparently didn't read:
Only about 2 percent of estates send a check to Uncle Sam, but that fact's been obscured by Bush's successful campaign to demonize it as a "death tax" imperiling the well-being of the masses.
Debaser
05-18-2004, 05:04 PM
Correction: The estate tax exemption is currently at $675,000. It's going to be raised to $1 million in 2006. But still, eliminating the estate tax is only benifiting the rich. It's not helping me, nor you, nor 99.999% of the people you know.
sppunk
05-18-2004, 08:14 PM
Debaser - 2
Nimrod - 0
tweedyburd
05-19-2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
after three years of job losses, you now are hanging your hat on just a couple months of growth?
Heh, as if 9/11--an uncontrolable circumstance--had nothing to do with job loss, layoffs and a tanked economy.
Originally posted by Debaser
Which clues into economists that this is most likely temporary.
Didn't you just say denial was more than a river in Egypt?
It seems to me there is a sneaking, cynical undercurrent inherent in the arguments of everyone denying the current economic recovery. It's the classic good news for them is bad news for us scenario. So when a relatively insane amount of jobs are created in March and April on the coat tails of record growth in the fourth quarter, we still have people saying nothing is really happening. When 350,000 jobs were added in March, some people on here were saying it was just one month and that it didn't really mean anything. Now, two months later, with a ton more jobs added, the denial hasn't changed all that much. Amazing.
If you talk to any serious economist (no, not Paul Krugman) who isn't steeped in ideology up to their necks, they will tell you the job growth is real and that more is on the way. I don't pretend to know all the factors responsible for the current recovery, whether they be tax cuts or natural market factors. But I do know I have not spoken to one economist since March who seriously believes the recovery is only "temporary."
Oh, and I have no idea what you're talking about when you say there is a false perception that conservative presidents mean better economies. The perception has always been, at least in my mind, the exact opposite, Clinton being the obvious example.
Oh, and you might want to look up the fact that Reagan added more TOTAL jobs in his tenure than Clinton (nearly 20 million were created under Reagan, about 16 million under Clinton).
Uh, the American unemployment rate is only 5.6%.
That's pretty fucking low.
Debaser
05-19-2004, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by machinaddict
Uh, the American unemployment rate is only 5.6%.
That's pretty fucking low.
considering that the unemployment rate was around 3%-4% throughout the entire 90's. hah.
machinaddict
05-19-2004, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
considering that the unemployment rate was around 3%-4% throughout the entire 90's. hah.
The 90s were a period of huge growth, but all that fell apart in 2000.
The economy goes through cycles you know. It can't continually grow every year at a higher and higher rate.
Debaser
05-19-2004, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by tweedyburd
It's funny how anything can be turned around. Since the recession hit in 2001, this has been unusually one of the slowest economic recoveries since 1939. The economy is cyclical as we all know - there will be ups and downs. You cannot prevent recessions. You can only try to make them as small as possible. The Bush administration since day 1 has been cutting taxes like crazy for the rich for 3 years now. 3. YEARS. And finally...finally, the economy may be coming back up (not because of, but despite bush, many economists would contend), and bush administration is now gloating over this and taking credit? please.
the bushies are all trumpeting one month of 300,000 and the following month of 200,000 job growth out of 3 and a half years when clinton average 230,000 per month throughout his entire presidency. pfft.
http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/todayseconomy/images/chart_jobgrowth.gif
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
explain to me how cutting taxes for the rich is helping me. explain to me why me paying a higher percentage of my income to the government than millionaires and corporations is helping me out. explain to me why abolishing the estate tax is going to help me. explain to me why any informed person that is not a millionaire would want bush in office.
jczeroman
05-19-2004, 12:49 PM
Here is an except from "fair" economy's mission statement saying they desire, "a global society where prosperity is better shared, where there is genuine equality of opportunity, where the power of concentrated money and corporations neither dominates the economy nor dictates the content of mass culture..."
AKA: a socialist global order.
Originally posted by Debaser
facts are that half of all Americans will receive less than $100 from the tax cut in 2003, but at the same time Americans making $1 million or more will receive $93,500.
Over the next four years, the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers will receive just 9 percent of all the tax cuts, while just the top one percent receives 39 percent of the tax cuts. The tax cut benefits flowing to the top 1% far outpace the 23% share of federal taxes they now pay.
FairEconomy.org (http://www.ufenet.org/research/BushStimulus.html)
And now info from an organization that has a bit less bias in its math:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=106
Actually, according to a nonpartisan analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, nearly 75% of all families are getting a tax cut this year from the two tax bills signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2002. The amounts vary widely, but the average is $1,217 – a dozen times more than Dean suggested.
Even families making only $20,000 to $30,000 a year are getting an average cut this year of $638. And 98.4% of that group -- "middle-class" by almost anybody's standards -- are getting some tax reduction, exactly contrary to what Dean said. And the amount of money is significant -- it increases their after-tax income an average of 2.7 percent above what it would have been before the Bush tax cuts.
And for those farther up in the middle-class hierarchy -- making $75,000 to $100,000 a year -- the Bush tax cuts are worth an average of $2,543 this year -- 25 times more than the $100 figure Dean suggested. More than 20 million American families earn $75,000 a year or more, and will be getting tax cuts in the thousands of dollars this year, not the the hundreds.
Generally, the only ones who get NO cut are those making less than $10,000 a year -- and few would think of them as middle-class. They’re the ones who earn too little to pay federal income tax in the first place, mostly singles and elderly retirees. Only 7 percent of them get a tax cut.
Nimrod
05-19-2004, 12:51 PM
No matter what you say, it is a Death Tax. If the father didn't die, there would be no tax.
</tr>
</tbody>
</table> The only problem I have with that is it shows dollar amount figures. It should show percentage.
Debaser
05-19-2004, 01:22 PM
God. let's stop with the statistics. we all can dig up statistics that will support anything. i bet i can find a statistic tell me how driving without a seatbelt is safer.
fuck. can we boil this down to real shit?
nimrod: i know youre a libertarian at heart and therefore getting rid of any tax, like the estate tax sound great to you. But let's just face it: everybody will get taxed no matter what. So why would it be fair to tax people making income from working, and not tax for example rich millionaires making money just because their parents own hella land that apreciates through time while they themselves never lifted a finger to work for what they have?
jczeroman: did your personal income tax get significantly lower these past few years? Mine did not. period. end of story. so all these statistics battling each other of who got more or less of the tax cut is out the window for me. But I do know why my taxes didn't go down: I don't make any income from capital gains. The Bush administration slashes taxes on anything gained from investments and stocks. Well really, who in america is actually making decent money from capital gains? who in america actually live off of capital gains? (answer: wealthy).
I'll even use your own chart to prove my point.
Households making 20-30 thousand got an average of -638 less tax. $638 is 2.5% reduction in tax (i used the middle of 25 thousand for the base).
Households making 500-100 thousand got -22,485. $22,485 divided by $750,000 is a 3.0% reduction.
This proves my point that the rich are getting more of a tax cut than the middle class.
So we really need to stop debating whether or not the rich are getting more of a tax cut from the bushies or not. It's a FACT.
So really the debate should be philosophically, how does it help me and the overwhelming majority of people here not making millions of dollars to pay a higher percentage of their own income in taxes?
The Omega Concern
05-19-2004, 01:41 PM
Just one year after Bush's cuts taxes to benifit the wealthy ...
thank you Karl Marx.
jczeroman
05-19-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
jczeroman: did your personal income tax get significantly lower these past few years? Mine did not. period. end of story. so all these statistics battling each other of who got more or less of the tax cut is out the window for me. But I do know why my taxes didn't go down: I don't make any income from capital gains. The Bush administration slashes taxes on anything gained from investments and stocks. Well really, who in america is actually making decent money from capital gains? who in america actually live off of capital gains? (answer: wealthy).
I'll even use your own chart to prove my point.
Households making 20-30 thousand got an average of -638 less tax. $638 is 2.5% reduction in tax (i used the middle of 25 thousand for the base).
Households making 500-100 thousand got -22,485. $22,485 divided by $750,000 is a 3.0% reduction.
This proves my point that the rich are getting more of a tax cut than the middle class.
So we really need to stop debating whether or not the rich are getting more of a tax cut from the bushies or not. It's a FACT.
While I was ready to concede, having seen a percentile chart and seen that there is a steady climb upwards, I noticed a footnote at the bottom of one of the tables:
"After-tax income is cash income less: individual income tax net of refundable credits, corporate income tax, payroll taxe, social security and medicare, and estate tax."
Did you have any divends? what about payroll? Do you own a company? I think not. I also think that most of the lower half of americans dont get a lot of thsi stuff. So of course there is going to be a disparigment. Since it is reasonable to assume that most of the wealthy are going to have a lot of these deductions then it is likely that their personal income tax cut is less than those of the poor and middle class.
jczeroman
05-19-2004, 01:48 PM
Also, here are the average rates per wealth class (%):
Lowest Quintile: 5.8
Second Quintile: 2.7
Middle Quintile: 2.9
Top Quintile: 13.5
Top 10 percent: 15.4
Top 5 percent: 17.2
Top 1 percent: 19.8
Top .5 percent: 20.3
Top .1 percent: 21.2
Thus, even without the understanding of the extra tax items (payroll, dividends), it would only be logical that their percent of cuts be higher as they are alreay paying a significantly higher percent.
sppunk
05-19-2004, 02:00 PM
You guys make me so happy.
Now, we should raise the taxes on everyone, percentage-wise, so everyone in America can have healthcare that is affordable and insurance that is affordable as well.
This country is a joke, and will be, until people realize we must redraw the health and insurance sector of the nation. And to do that - you need taxes.
Taxes are a good thing and a great tool if utilized properly.
jczeroman
05-19-2004, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
The Canton Timken plants has been around for 104 years. The Timken family were heavy donors to the Bush campaign.
Everyone named Timken in the US gave a total of $189,800 thus far to total general political causes. Not all of that is the Timken we are talkign abouty, nor is it to George Bush or Republicans.
Even if all of that were from THE Timkens and it was all going to President Bush, then i still doubt it would be too significant. Although, I can't get Bush's data to work for me.
Taxes are a good thing and a great tool if utilized properly.
Never ever been done withotu abuse.
Nimrod
05-19-2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
nimrod: i know youre a libertarian at heart and therefore getting rid of any tax, like the estate tax sound great to you. But let's just face it: everybody will get taxed no matter what. So why would it be fair to tax people making income from working, and not tax for example rich millionaires making money just because their parents own hella land that apreciates through time while they themselves never lifted a finger to work for what they have?
Ok, it's simple: because it's wrong. It's wrong to punish someone for that. It's wrong to say that someone owes more to society because they were able to get more themselves. It's wrong to say that a son should have to pay for what his father earned. That's why. The justification is always about "well we could use this money to..." but the simple fact of the matter is, it's fucking wrong.
Nimrod
05-19-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
So really the debate should be philosophically, how does it help me and the overwhelming majority of people here not making millions of dollars to pay a higher percentage of their own income in taxes? I'm in favor of a flat tax.
Let me ask you this - do you REALLY believe you pay a hgher percentage in tax than those who make more? Think about it... even if what you said was true, that the Bush tax cuts did give a higher percentage back to the wealthy than not, my answer is this: so what?
Clinton had raised taxes enourmously on the wealthy. This is some sort of a balance out.
I'm in favor of a flat tax. You shouldn't punish people for being successful.
I remember when I went from 42,000/yr to 52,000/yr I thought I would see a great increase in my paycheck. I saw hardly anything, because I went to a new tax bracket. You know who got a raise? Not me. The government.
The whole system is shitty. Everyone should pay their "fair share." It should be a flat amount cut from everyone. The rich STILL would pay more, and everyone benefits equally from taxes (in theory, although you all know tax dollars help the poor more than anyone else) so in reality, that would be the most fair system.
Debaser
05-19-2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
Ok, it's simple: because it's wrong. It's wrong to punish someone for that. It's wrong to say that someone owes more to society because they were able to get more themselves. It's wrong to say that a son should have to pay for what his father earned. That's why. The justification is always about "well we could use this money to..." but the simple fact of the matter is, it's fucking wrong.
same thing. i call it a tax, you call it a punishment. is it fair that the middle class gets "punished" and the rich do not? im for "punishing" both the middle class and the upper class equally.
another way of looking at the estate tax is comparing it to the lottery. when somebody wins the lottery, they get taxed for it. what's the difference when somebody wins the birth parents lottery and recieves all their assets? it equates to a windfall that the person did not actually work to earn.
let's keep this in perspective, the estate tax is only applied to estates worth more than $675,000 and even then, on estates worth between $650,000-1 million, the effective tax rate is only 2.6%. that's it! i dunno why bush is tooting this horn about how scary this estate tax is. ridiculous. If I was rich and just inherited a $1 million dollar business, I wouldn't mind paying 2.6% in taxes, cuz im pretty damn sure I could afford it. I wouldn't be crying about it.
Debaser
05-19-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
I'm in favor of a flat tax.
Let me ask you this - do you REALLY believe you pay a hgher percentage in tax than those who make more? Think about it... even if what you said was true, that the Bush tax cuts did give a higher percentage back to the wealthy than not, my answer is this: so what?
Clinton had raised taxes enourmously on the wealthy. This is some sort of a balance out.
I'm in favor of a flat tax. You shouldn't punish people for being successful.
I remember when I went from 42,000/yr to 52,000/yr I thought I would see a great increase in my paycheck. I saw hardly anything, because I went to a new tax bracket. You know who got a raise? Not me. The government.
The whole system is shitty. Everyone should pay their "fair share." It should be a flat amount cut from everyone. The rich STILL would pay more, and everyone benefits equally from taxes (in theory, although you all know tax dollars help the poor more than anyone else) so in reality, that would be the most fair system.
newsflash: you are not the "rich" that I'm talking about. when I say "rich" I mean millionaires.
52,000/yr is still middle class. bush tax cuts mainly benefit the wealthy by barely taxing CAPITOL GAINS or INVESTMENT INCOME. You're still on salary, so you more or less do not benefit from bush's tax cuts.
i've figured out why you don't buy the fact that rich are getting a lighter tax burden. When you look at bush facts and figures that want you to believe that the rich are taxed more, you are only looking at their salaried income from working. What those figures leave out, is all the money that they earn from investments and such. It is that extra money they earn from dividends and stuff (i.e. capital gains) that is not being taxed fairly. So when you combine all the money that a millionaire earns from both salary and capital gains and compare it to the total taxes they pay--that is why their tax percentage dips below the average middleclass worker.
so then you say: so what?
well considering that we have a gigantic budget deficit, i think it would be kinda fair if the rich would pay their fair share.
Debaser
05-19-2004, 03:17 PM
jczero, check out the newsweek article i posted earlier.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4660655/
it's pretty much established that bush aims to drastically reduce the tax burden on the top upperclass and not the middle class. it's not some crazy theory.
sppunk
05-19-2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by jczeroman
Never ever been done withotu abuse.
And we're not being abused now? I'd rather be raped but have an orgasm than raped and have nothing.
jczeroman
05-19-2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by sppunk
And we're not being abused now?
I repeat: it has never been done without abuse.
jczeroman
05-19-2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
it's pretty much established that bush aims to drastically reduce the tax burden on the top upperclass and not the middle class. it's not some crazy theory.
The article is opinion, not news, he doesn't cite his sources. Even farther, I have no problem with Bush eliminating all the double taxation that goes on for those that have incorporated.
A lot of people forget that the overwhelming ammount of corporations in this country are small, family business. When those taxes are cut or eliminated, then those people have that money to grow their business (which requires jobs).
What we have, when we tax corporations too much, is what england has. It costed my dad's army buddy over $400,000 to start a small pawn shop, mostly due to taxes. People think that "corporations" are synonimous with "the rich" but it's not even close to true.
The rich are paying almost 3 times the ammount of other groups. Thta is not fair. They should not be getting punished for being better at making money than other people.
No matter how you cut taxes, if you cut all groups, the rich are going to get massive ammounts back- esspecially in an extremely progressive system like ours. If the poor are paying 9 cents on the dollar and the rich are paying 24 cents, then not only are they going to get more back from the cut initially, but they are going to get another boost from the percentage that is already stacked against them.
While I absolutely detest Bush, and thing he's a crook, and ultimately, there probably i ssome deceptive motives behind these cuts. I doubt that he's being altrustic here. At the same tiem we have to think about this basic premise:
A party that is supposedly "for the rich" would not stay in power in a democracy if more and more people were poor. Thus it is an incentive, if a party wants to be rich, to make and keep as many people rich as possible. Beware any party or group that claims to be "for the poor" because it is an incentive for them to keep people feeling poor and downtrodden in order to get votes.
The obvious comparison is with the Roman Emporers and their bidding on soldiers. In Rome, it was the soldiers who made emperors. Thus the Emperors gave massive pay raises to the soldiers all the time. This absolutely destroyed their economy (as they flooded the market with fiat money in order to pay the soldiers) and the empire went through the "crisis of the 3rd century."
Basically this guy afterward (a crooked emporer named Diocletian) blamed the rich:
“If the excess perpetrated by persons of unlimited and frenzied avarice could be checked by some self-restraint – this avarice which rushes to gain profit with no thought for mankind…; or if the general welfare could endure without harm this riotous license… the situation could perhaps be faced with dissembling and silence…
But the only desire of these uncontrolled madmen is to have no thought for the common need. Therefore we, who are the protectors of the human race, are agreed… that decisive legislation is necessary… for the general betterment of all… These measures are directed against the unscrupulous, who have perceived in our silence of so many years a lesson in restraint but have been unwilling to imitate it…
The uncurbed passion for profiteering lessened either by abundant supplies or by fruitful years… It is our pleasure, therefore, that the prices listed in the subjoined schedule be held in observance in the whole of our empire… anyone who resists the measures of this statute shall be subject to a capital penalty for daring to do so.”
The funny thing is, that it was actually the government who had destroyed the economy not "profeteers." The other point of all of that, is to show that if "the poor" can be made into a large enough voting bloc (in a democracy) then an official or party can use the gap between rich and poor, to ferment a fight between the two, while that official or party pockets the collateral.
Mark my words, this country will continue to see a gap between rich or poor, as more and more progressives get in power. It will be no coincidence.
Debaser
05-19-2004, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by jczeroman
i don't have time at the moment to debate point by point. later.
first thoughts:
-the source of the article is bush's tax plan!!!
-the rich paying more total tax than other groups is completely fair! they're friggin rich, its mathematics! i don't see any rich millionaires declaring bankruptcy because of taxes. i don't see any rich millionaires crying because they couldn't afford that 4th car. in fact i see millionairs like Timken going "hmmm..." if I layoff 1,300 workers in canton ohio and squeeze more productivity from my other plants, I'll be making hella more money!
-your analogy of poor paying 9 cents per dollar to rich paying 24 cents per dollar is false. what's really happening in the analogy is the poor is paying 15 cents per dollar (FICA is 15% no matter what you make) and if the poor manage to get a raise, then they have to pay 15% income tax on top of the 15% FICA (now that's REAL double taxation, not the phoney double talk bush claims that estate or capital gains tax is). Then you have the super rich that are paying 34 cents per dollar they get in SALARY, but oh wait -- they are getting another dollar from capital gains and they are paying 1 cent per that. NOT FAIR.
also:
Column on why Bush's Tax Cut really doesn't help small business's either (http://www.bcentral.ca/articles/anthony/134.asp)
Nimrod
05-19-2004, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
newsflash: you are not the "rich" that I'm talking about. when I say "rich" I mean millionaires.
52,000/yr is still middle class. bush tax cuts mainly benefit the wealthy by barely taxing CAPITOL GAINS or INVESTMENT INCOME. You're still on salary, so you more or less do not benefit from bush's tax cuts.
i've figured out why you don't buy the fact that rich are getting a lighter tax burden. When you look at bush facts and figures that want you to believe that the rich are taxed more, you are only looking at their salaried income from working. What those figures leave out, is all the money that they earn from investments and such. It is that extra money they earn from dividends and stuff (i.e. capital gains) that is not being taxed fairly. So when you combine all the money that a millionaire earns from both salary and capital gains and compare it to the total taxes they pay--that is why their tax percentage dips below the average middleclass worker.
so then you say: so what?
well considering that we have a gigantic budget deficit, i think it would be kinda fair if the rich would pay their fair share. I realize I'm not the "rich" you're referring to. I was offering an example of why it is wrong. It is no more wrong to tax me higher on my 10,000 raise than it is to tax someone that makes 200,000 more on a higher percentage.
Liberals have been quite effective for years at creating class envy, and the idea that the rich should be "punished" and "pay their fair share."
Nimrod
05-19-2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
-the rich paying more total tax than other groups is completely fair! they're friggin rich, its mathematics! i don't see any rich millionaires declaring bankruptcy because of taxes. i don't see any rich millionaires crying because they couldn't afford that 4th car. in fact i see millionairs like Timken going "hmmm..." if I layoff 1,300 workers in canton ohio and squeeze more productivity from my other plants, I'll be making hella more money!
[/URL] It's not "mathematics."
For some reason, you find it fair to make punishment unproportionate to American citizens. I favor a flat tax, with no loopholes if possible, on all Americans. Imagine how easy your taxes would be. Imagine the red tape gone from government. tiny IRS. Everyone paying the same percentage.
Again though you miss the point. The rich ARE and DO pay MORE TOTAL tax. No one is agruing that point.
However, it should be at the same percentage.
Debaser
05-19-2004, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
I realize I'm not the "rich" you're referring to. I was offering an example of why it is wrong. It is no more wrong to tax me higher on my 10,000 raise than it is to tax someone that makes 200,000 more on a higher percentage.
Liberals have been quite effective for years at creating class envy, and the idea that the rich should be "punished" and "pay their fair share."
but bush wants rich people to pay less than you.
Debaser
05-19-2004, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
The rich ARE and DO pay MORE TOTAL tax. No one is agruing that point.
THAT IS ONLY ON SALARIED INCOME TAX.
THE SUPER RICH MAKE MOST OF THEIR MONEY FROM CAPITAL GAINS.
a super rich dude is paying +35% on the $1 million dollar salary he earns at his job. well guess what he's making 35 million dollars on capital gains and he's only taxed 15% on it. you need to expand your horizons here.
Nimrod
05-19-2004, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
but bush wants rich people to pay less than you. You're insane.
Nimrod
05-19-2004, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
THAT IS ONLY ON SALARIED INCOME TAX.
THE SUPER RICH MAKE MOST OF THEIR MONEY FROM CAPITAL GAINS.
a super rich dude is paying +35% on the $1 million dollar salary he earns at his job. well guess what he's making 35 million dollars on capital gains and he's only taxed 15% on it. you need to expand your horizons here. Good. Capital gains is taxing people on money they already earned. It's stupid. Yes I realize you're taxing on the increased value of the same money, but still, it's stupid.
Debaser
05-19-2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
You're insane.
If I'm insane, then you're completely brainwashed by the right.
tweedyburd
05-19-2004, 09:09 PM
Hah, I love how statitistics were just fine and dandy for Debaser until others offered their own contradictory sources. Surprise, the AFL-CIO is not exactly putting that table you're referring to in context. The fact remains Reagan presided over the biggest overall economic boom in peace time history and created even more jobs in less time than your beloved Rubinomic Clinton policies, which incidentally weren't all that different from Bush I. Clinton basically just continued the same small raise in marginal rates that Bush I started. Hell, two of Clinton's economic advisors are on record as saying their growth policy was overall supply-side. And did you even stop to consider that Democrats haven't exactly always endorsed higher taxes, and that could be a reason why some Democratic presidents averaged more jobs per month than some Republicans? Kennedy cut top tax rates by 30 percent in 1964 and spawned several years of an average annual growth rate of 5 percent. He also cut taxes on those evil capital gains.
The point is this: I never got a job from a poor guy, and Kennedy was right when he said a rising tide lifts all boats. Basic Keynesian economics believe in middle class tax cuts because it gives more money to consumers instead of investors. When consumption goes up, revenues go up, right. But shouldn't tax breaks that spur consumption through job growth be preferred? Aren't revenues from new jobs preferable to revenues from those who already have jobs and just have a little extra money to spend? Middle class tax cuts are fine for Democratic stump speeches, but they do little or nothing to create actual jobs. Why not increase consumption and thus revenues by primarily increasing jobs? Historically, this has been the case with supply-side practices, as embodied most definitely by Reagan.
If you want to argue about Bush's tax cuts being inappropriate in a time like this, I would be much more receptive. It's true--Bush is the first wartime president to cut taxes in a time of huge domestic and wartime spending. To some on the traditional Right, he's not even a conservative, but some weird new hybrid altogether. But by slamming supply-side economics outright without any real historical context, you're sounding more and more like a shill who is just looking for "facts" to support an already preconceived answer.
And get it right, the recession started in 2000, not 2001. And guess what? Economic plans don't produce results overnight. True, it is the slowest job recovery under what is considered a recovery, but any honest opinion about that will consider that the economic aftermath of 9/11 isn't just like any other time, either.
The fairest conclusion is one which conceeds that supply-side tax breaks spur economic growth and are generally good for everyone, but in an atmosphere where trade has forced many companies to up and leave their employees behind, a lot of new jobs that may have been created through those tax cuts haven't materialized yet because more factories are closing and fewer are being built in the U.S. Remember that Clinton (one of those Democratic presidents) signed NAFTA, which is apparently the root evil of the world.
Personally, I can't wait to see how you come up with new and amusing ways to deny the recovery (if it continues) as the election approaches. I can see it now: Headline, Oct.17--"Now, nearly all jobs have been recovered since 9/11 economic meltdown." And then someone will post that headline and you will say something silly, like how they are not the "right kind" of jobs and continue on the yellow brick road of denial, while people based in reality can sit back and watch the job boom as good news, free of any anger that our ideology did not jive with what actually happened in growth and the job market.
If the recovery turns into a boom, the problem is that the burden of explanation is on you. You can prattle on all day about how Bush's tax cuts actually slowed down the recovery, but at the end of the day you have to explain why, under a Republican president who champions supply-side tax cuts, the economy is adding tons of jobs and stimulating record growth.
jczeroman
05-20-2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
NOT FAIR.
This seems to be the root of yours, and most people's problems with "the rich." Let me first ask this question: how is it that you, or anyone else, believes that because another person has they must give? Just because you have a bigger CD collection than mine, does not mean I am entitled to some of it. Just because a person has acumulated wealth (through inheritance or work) does not mean that her is obligated to give it away. It is her property. She owns it.
Why is it that more and more people are demanding things that other own, simply because others have it. I am amazed and appaled that "fair" has been twisted to mean "give me." To me, "fair" means that one reaps what one sows. Lawbreakers must be punished, and oppression is not right, and thus since some people are better at acumulating wealth than others, then they have the right to enjoy the toil of their own hands.
Demanding that the rich give, simply because they are is the most disgustignly unfair notion I have ever heard. If I work hard at something, invent something, create something or build something am I not entitled to my work? Would it not be stealing if I built myself a house to live, but those around me, who would not built their own houses, came and stole mine?
In our post-black slave America, we seem to think that slavery only happens to the poor and the oppressed. Yet I say that if any man who works and another man, by legal institutions, spends even one cent of his money -- that man is a slave.
There is no dignity in handouts. There is no life unless man is free to build for himself what he desires. The most oppressed minority in this country is the individual, who has become a slave to the collective masses, waiting for him to finish his work, that they may take from him what his own hand has made.
Debaser
05-20-2004, 11:06 AM
meh, after the shitty ass night yesterday with the kings losing and angel series final episode, i've lost the will to really debate anymore. but i think i got my points across in previous posts.
righties love to say "hey quit punishing the rich for being rich!" while lefties say "hey, quit punishing the poor for being poor!".
here in the most simpliest terms possible:
tweedy: we'll just have to wait and see what happens with the economy, eh? i pretty much stand here and see all the fucked up shit that bush has bungled - the war, the wmds, the slow recovery of the economy- and i just want him out.
jczerman: you misunderstand the whole "root" of it. The root is that everybody must give. everybody. and its not fair that the poor and middle class must give MORE of a percentage of their income to the government than the rich.
And I guess it just comes down to whether you believe the rich are paying a fair share or not. Sure, the salaries that the rich make are taxed at a higher rate than the poor, but the super rich make most of their money from something else, and that something else is not being taxed fairly.
machinaddict
05-20-2004, 12:29 PM
Uh, anyone that has taken a macro-economics course should realize that a progressive tax system is better for the economy than a regressive one.
Guess which system North America has?
jczeroman
05-20-2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
jczerman: you misunderstand the whole "root" of it. The root is that everybody must give. everybody. and its not fair that the poor and middle class must give MORE of a percentage of their income to the government than the rich.
DID YOU READ THE STATS I PUT OUT THAT ARE WIDELY AVAILABLE AND THAT NOT EVEN ULTRA-LEFTISTS WILL REFUTE??
Originally posted by jczeroman
Also, here are the average rates per wealth class (%):
Lowest Quintile: 5.8
Second Quintile: 2.7
Middle Quintile: 2.9
Top Quintile: 13.5
Top 10 percent: 15.4
Top 5 percent: 17.2
Top 1 percent: 19.8
Top .5 percent: 20.3
Top .1 percent: 21.2
The rich are paing in the upper teens, the middle-class in the tens and the poor at below ten.
Nimrod's Son
05-20-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by jczeroman
DID YOU READ THE STATS I PUT OUT THAT ARE WIDELY AVAILABLE AND THAT NOT EVEN ULTRA-LEFTISTS WILL REFUTE??
The rich are paing in the upper teens, the middle-class in the tens and the poor at below ten. I've been trying to get that fact across to him for 2 pages now.
I_was_aborted
05-20-2004, 03:46 PM
Wasn't his point about the size of the tax breaks given and not the amount of taxes paid?
Just askin, not tryin to get into the argument here.
jczeroman
05-20-2004, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by I_was_aborted
Wasn't his point about the size of the tax breaks given and not the amount of taxes paid?
Just askin, not tryin to get into the argument here.
yes, but as all arguements and wars of ideology, it was merely a starting point for a massive war on a major principle. This happens in real life with real wars, and it also happens in discussion with so called "smaller issues."
This is why a principled approach on all issues is essential, and why I personally will take my views to their utter nonsensical extreme (tipping). A good discussion will cut to the heart of the greater philosophies behind the initial "smaller issue."
tweedyburd
05-20-2004, 09:13 PM
Gotta say I'm pretty disappointed in that cop-out, Debaser. Perhaps you just don't have as strong a grasp on this as you thought you did earlier in the thread. You have basically ignored substantial parts of at least three of our arguments.
One of the biggest problems with your muddled argument is that it doesn't even consider that, under lower marginal rates, the rich actually end up paying more in federal income taxes because it gives them incentive to take capital out of shelters and invest it, followed by taxation on their additional investments. This is something which would never happen if they didn't have the incentive to invest in the first place. That's not even counting the jobs created under their investment and the tax revenue that pours in from millions of new jobs as it happened in the mid-late 80s.
Debaser
05-20-2004, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by tweedyburd
Gotta say I'm pretty disappointed in that cop-out, Debaser. Perhaps you just don't have as strong a grasp on this as you thought you did earlier in the thread. You have basically ignored substantial parts of at least three of our arguments.
One of the biggest problems with your muddled argument is that it doesn't even consider that, under lower marginal rates, the rich actually end up paying more in federal income taxes because it gives them incentive to take capital out of shelters and invest it, followed by taxation on their additional investments. This is something which would never happen if they didn't have the incentive to invest in the first place. That's not even counting the jobs created under their investment and the tax revenue that pours in from millions of new jobs as it happened in the mid-late 80s.
nigga please. i'm the only one here talking in direct arguements that are met tripled teamed with convoluted graphs and charts and double speak.
Ignoring substantial parts of arguements? I'm ignoring convoluted extraneous shit. If you want a response ask a direct question. You've guys have ignored every direct simple question I ask (did your taxes get lower? has anything bush has done directly affected you or anybody around you?) and instead comeback with 500 word essays on economic theories. Quit talking at me, and start talking to me.
i'm tired of unravelling the buried points in most of your superfluous diatribes that rattle on about nothing concrete. classic example: take last paragraph -- what the fuck do you mean?
"This is something which would never happen if they didn't have the incentive to invest in the first place."
Wake up, people will always have incentive to invest because they want to make money.
Sometimes I think that you yourself do not grasp what you speak about because it takes you 1000 words to talk about it and you never ever speak about it in simple basic concepts. I do not think you can see the forest through the trees.
nobody here has yet to explain or deny what went wrong with the Timken factory in the very first post! why don't you guys explain how that isn't proof that bush is an idiot first before you give me 5 pages about the reagan era.
tweedyburd
05-20-2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
Ignoring substantial parts of arguements? I'm ignoring convoluted extraneous shit. If you want a response ask a direct question. You've guys have ignored every direct simple question I ask (did your taxes get lower? has anything bush has done directly affected you or anybody around you?) and instead comeback with 500 word essays on economic theories. Quit talking at me, and start talking to me.
The problem is that your arguments are in the realm of theory but apparently you are not aware of it or just not prepared to go where they ultimately lead. What the fuck else are we talking about if not the theory of which tax policy is the most fair and economically productive? If you're going to make a post about how awful Bush's handling of the economy is, it obviously implies you know of a better, alternative policy or theory.
Oh, and when you post a chart, don't get pissed when I tell you that Democratic presidents like Kennedy had similar tax policies to the ones you're condemning in this thread. It's just as relevant as anything you've posted in order to make a point.
Originally posted by Debaser
what the fuck do you mean?
"This is something which would never happen if they didn't have the incentive to invest in the first place."
Wake up, people will always have incentive to invest because they want to make money.
I assumed you had at least a middle-school level comprehension ability, but alas, I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
No shit people will always want to make money. What I meant--and what was obvious about that statement--was that big investors will use a lower tax incentive to invest even more than they normally would under higher tax rates. I wasn't implying that investors don't invest. I was saying they will invest even more under the incentive of lower tax rates instead of holding capital under the umbrella of a tax sheltor, in effect creating more growth, etc.
Originally posted by Debaser
Sometimes I think that you yourself do not grasp what you speak about because it takes you 1000 words to talk about it and you never ever speak about it in simple basic concepts. I do not think you can see the forest through the trees.
The funny thing is, everything I have mentioned in this thread is "simple basic concepts" to anyone who knows diddly squat about the ebbs and flows of the U.S. economy and its history. I don't pretend to be an expert, but please, don't talk down to me just because I bothered to spell out what you never bothered to consider. You want simple answers, but this is not a simple topic.
Originally posted by Debaser
nobody here has yet to explain or deny what went wrong with the Timken factory in the very first post! why don't you guys explain how that isn't proof that bush is an idiot first before you give me 5 pages about the reagan era.
Your biggest problem is that, in your hatred of all things Bush, you're simply trying to blame everything on him in a narrow, simplistic way, proving you haven't really taken the time to understand the underlying reasons this plant will close.
I don't know where you got the idea that supply-side tax policy, or any of Bush's core economic policy for that matter, is to blame for the closing of this plant. Get real--plants are closing because companies are growing increasingly competitive and many are fond of cheaper labor overseas for competitive reasons. And since you have such a problem with basic comprehension, I'll try and spell the reasons for this out so you can understand. Let me know if I go too fast, K?
The simple fact remains that the U.S. imports about three times as many jobs as it loses for reasons of trade. The problem with stories like the Timken plant is that reactionary people like you read these headlines and assume nothing but bad things are happening. What you don't see in the news is how many jobs are added in other sectors because of free trade. The manufactuing sector was bound to downsize and circulate jobs in and out of the country at this rate sooner or later--it's just the nature of the new economy and our current trade policy, not the result or failulre of some evil Bush tax cuts. As I said earlier, NAFTA set the frame work and the competitive atmosphere that has increasingly fostered downsizing and more efficient work forces which compete directly with foreign companies who produce things much cheaper than we do, which obviously lead to a loss of jobs in some manufacturing areas.
Your implication that Bush's tax breaks--if they did what they were supposed to--should have kept Timken from closing the plant is stupid. Bush's tax breaks to those companies, in actual dollars, pale in comparison to the profits they would lose if they didn't get down in the dirt and use downsizing and free trade just like their competitors do. A lot of people seem to think that actions like Timken's are the result of greed over everything else, as though they could make it just fine without closing some plants. In fact, most companies (not all) are just doing what they have to do to remain profitable and competitive, which is the goal of any company, is it not?
Where Bush's tax breaks have actually helped is through the investor class, and big investors have an equal influence in what jobs are created and what growth is stimulated. Another thing you didn't bother to consider is that higher corporate taxes (which I assume you subscribe to) aren't exactly a remedy to keep companies from closing plants in America. All the industry here in the southeast is going to either Tennessee or South Carolina and leaving their home states, because they're state tax rates are significantly less than in North Carolina and Virginia. Nor would higher federal taxes keep corporations from going overseas where they are taxed at the foreign rate, which is often times much less than the comparable U.S. rate.
The roots of these job losses are not of Bush's doing, but they are a product of the trade system both he and Kerry agree with. So if you want to criticize job loss in certain areas--and still ignore the fact that we're importing even more in other areas--then criticize the trade platform both presidential candidates stand on, not the economic policies of one which have no real bearing on actual job loss.
Even though the article said most of the jobs were going to other U.S. plants, the basic argument remains the same. Companies will be competitive whether that be through downsizing at home, or shipping those jobs overseas. Efficiency will always trump jobs when your competitor is getting by with even less workers than you are. Still, this is the product of a new economy which values more product with less work--efficency over everything else. You cannot lay those things at the door of this White House.
"It's just all about being competitive," Timken spokesman Jason Saragin said.
jczeroman
05-21-2004, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
You've guys have ignored every direct simple question I ask (did your taxes get lower? has anything bush has done directly affected you or anybody around you?) and instead comeback with 500 word essays on economic theories. Quit talking at me, and start talking to me.
Last year's federal rebate: $768
This year's federal rebate: $1,710
Bush has done all kinds of things that affect me, most of them in a negative way.
Debaser
05-21-2004, 10:55 PM
The Neoconomists
The Bush administration's other revolutionaries.
By Daniel Altman
Posted Monday, May 10, 2004, at 11:17 AM PT
While neoconservatives in the Bush administration remake American foreign policy, another cadre of ideologues—call them the neoconomists—is busy attempting to transform American society.
The revolution in economic policy is not being televised. There was no big speech by President Bush to mark its birth, no "Axis of Evil" catchphrase designed to capture headlines. Yet it is every bit as dramatic and risky a change.
The neoconomists have one goal: to increase the rate at which the economy grows by changing how the nation uses its resources. It is a worthy goal, too. Following such as path could lead to a period of untold prosperity, with living standards rising faster than ever before. Or it might not. But even if the plan works, it might just lead to the collapse of the capitalist system.
The nation's current economic policy came to Washington in care of R. Glenn Hubbard and Lawrence B. Lindsey, who spent roughly the first two years of the Bush administration as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and chairman of the National Economic Council, respectively.
For years, both men had been ardent supporters of the notion that income from savings and wealth was taxed too much. In 1990, Lindsey wrote that "with only a very modest loss of tax revenue, the tax system can be reformed to substantially encourage the savings we need to sustain our investment in a more productive economy." A decade later, Hubbard and a co-author wrote that savings and wealth had "long and widely been acknowledged as especially impaired by taxation."
Hubbard and Lindsey saw cutting taxes on savings and wealth as a recipe for faster growth. Their plans were consistent with supply-side economics, which had dominated Republican policy for decades, since they targeted the economy's long-run potential to grow rather than short-run fine-tuning of demand. But the focus on savings was a departure from earlier conservative doctrine.
During the Reagan administration, most talk about tax cuts centered on removing disincentives to work. In the years that followed, though, academic economists began to favor a new set of theoretical models where the savings rate took a more prominent role as a determinant of economic growth. In addition, the models suggested that the pace of technological change depended on changes in the size of the capital stock, which can only grow if investors save more. The neoconomists didn't invent these models—that was the job of theorists whose work sometimes looked more like physics than economics—but they quickly grasped the implications for policy. They used the models to postulate the following chain reaction:
1. Government cuts tax rates on savings and wealth.
2. Saving by households—bank accounts, stocks, bonds, etc.—increases.
3. More money becomes available to American businesses, since they're the ones offering the bank accounts, stocks, bonds, etc.
4. Businesses spend more on machinery, software, and other capital, as well as on research and development.
5. The nation's output of goods and services grows, and technological innovation accelerates.
6. Incomes and living standards rise more quickly for several years and perhaps forever.
With George W. Bush's cooperation, the first steps have already been taken. So far, the president has signed bills eliminating the estate tax, lowering the tax rates on dividends and capital gains, and helping companies to reduce the tax they pay on their profits. In addition, by cutting rates for "ordinary" income, the Bush administration has lowered taxes on interest payments, rental income and income from mutual funds, and pensions and retirement accounts. (Though slated to be temporary, the Bush administration is campaigning to make its tax breaks permanent.) All of these changes make it relatively more attractive to accumulate wealth than to spend money.
In addition, the White House is pushing for an initiative that would almost single-handedly accomplish Hubbard and Lindsey's goal: a huge expansion of tax-free savings accounts. And the growth of these tax-free savings accounts would dovetail well with the White House's plan for reforming Social Security, which calls for the creation of another type of tax-free investment account for every working American.
Hubbard and Lindsey's agenda is long-term, but it has already incurred some substantial costs. In the short term, their focus on savings has offered relatively little stimulus to the economy. Had the White House directed more incentives toward spending, the lag between recession and recovery might have been shorter.
In the long term, the cost of the Bush administration's policy has been forgone opportunities. The combination of the weak economy and the White House's decadelong schedule of tax cuts has left future administrations with little room to maneuver. Forecasts for budget balances from 2002 to 2011 have dropped from $5.6 trillion in surpluses to $2.9 trillion in deficits in the past three years. In the coming years, the federal government will have little money to invest in economic growth directly, by spending money on education, worker training, or basic research, which generate reliably high returns to society in the long run.
This latter cost is particularly germane, since there is no assurance that the positive chain-reaction the neoconomists envision will actually occur. Hubbard and Lindsey's strategy has never been tried in a large, wealthy economy. One flaw in the theory is that American savings do not always stay in America for use by American companies. In the past two decades, the share of savings sent abroad appears to have risen from about 10 percent to at least 40 percent. And when the Treasury borrows to make up for large deficits, more American savings will end up in the hands of government and less in investments by businesses.
The speedy growth of the economy in the last three quarters—averaging more than 5 percent at an annual rate—could signal impressive things to come. And the experience of the Clinton administration proved that even the biggest deficits can disappear given a broad enough expansion in the economy. But even if the Bush administration succeeds, its policies could create two problems that could undo all their positive effects: rising inequality and a drastic change in incentives.
Wealthier people derive more of their income from returns on saving—both in dollar terms and as a proportion of income—than poor people do. When taxes on the return from savings suddenly disappear, the wealthy benefit the most. It may be that people who depend on their jobs for income will benefit, too, in the long run, thanks to an expanding economy and rising wages. But for several years, in all likelihood, the income gap will continue to widen.
That income gap poses some real dangers to the economy and even to the earnings of the wealthy. With rising inequality, it's harder for poor people to obtain economic opportunities, because chances to get education and training, or to bring ideas to market, depend on money as well as talent, and because the number of these opportunities is limited.
The Bush administration has done little to alleviate either of these conditions. So, when income gaps widen, more of the potential of poor people—even the smartest and most innovative poor people—will inevitably be wasted. The wealthier people who own America's companies won't have as skilled a workforce, or as fast a flow of new ideas, as they might have had otherwise.
Perhaps more important, abolishing taxes on saving would give people every incentive to receive all their income from financial assets rather than wages and salaries. For some, spending all day adjusting one's portfolio might make more sense than taking a job. Even people who work will seek ways to avoid taxes, for example by being paid solely in stock options or high-interest bonds.
Of course, those people would probably be chief executives and other financial sophisticates, rather than home health workers, call-center operators, and short-order cooks. Eventually, the new incentives could lead to a whole new way of classifying people: working and upper-class would be replaced by taxpayer and free-rider. Titans of industry, heirs and heiresses, and wizards of Wall Street wouldn't pay for national defense, cancer research, or President Bush's trip to Mars. All those costs would be borne by America's breadwinners.
It sounds like a recipe for the kind of social unrest that can make an economy stagger, stagnate, or worse. A political backlash would seem almost inevitable. And something worse—like a riotous manifestation of anticapitalist sentiment—would become a real possibility for the first time in decades. And that's what could happen if the theory works.
Debaser
05-21-2004, 11:02 PM
ah, tweedy, you are a master spinner. i commend you for that. All I want to do now is point to the metaphorical "scoreboard".
-the ultra slow economic recovery
-the high unemployment rate
-the quagmire in iraq
-the largest budget deficit in 20 years
-the tax cut while the country is at war
-the incredible gas prices
-the inflammatory expose' books by former members of bush's own administration woodward & o'neil.
scoreboard.
i know i know, you can write endlessly to spin all those as not the fault of the bushies, but nevertheless you can't change that scoreboard. the end. kthxbye.
tweedyburd
05-21-2004, 11:27 PM
Man, that's lame as fuck. If you have to go off and find some obviously partisan article in place of your own insufficient arguments then I guess the debate is over. Oh yes, the Bushes are deliberately conspiring to broaden so-called "inequality gaps"! That's exactly what's behind their evil schemes! Yeah, I think I'll go over to the Hoover Foundation and lob contradictory articles back to you. Lame, dude.
But just for shits and giggles, one last thing:
-the high unemployment rate (again, if you think the current unemployment rate is high then you should go back to highest unemployment rate in nearly 30 years with Carter's last years in office, when it was about 7.6 percent. Seriously, 5.6 is not all that high considering what we've been through over the past three years. besides, inflation tends to skyrocket if it dips below 4.5 or so.
Debaser
05-21-2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by tweedyburd
Man, that's lame as fuck. If you have to go off and find some obviously partisan article in place of your own insufficient arguments then I guess the debate is over. Oh yes, the Bushes are deliberately conspiring to broaden so-called "inequality gaps"! That's exactly what's behind their evil schemes! Yeah, I think I'll go over to the Hoover Foundation and lob contradictory articles back to you. Lame, dude.
But just for shits and giggles, one last thing:
-the high unemployment rate (again, if you think the current unemployment rate is high then you should go back to highest unemployment rate in nearly 30 years with Carter's last years in office, when it was about 7.6 percent. Seriously, 5.6 is not all that high considering what we've been through over the past three years. besides, inflation tends to skyrocket if it dips below 4.5 or so.
hah. still didn't change the scoreboard.
but still that was a great way to spin yourself out of the way of that article i posted. good job. obviously partisan? hey, look in the mirror.
tweedyburd
05-22-2004, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
hah. still didn't change the scoreboard.
Still didn't answer anything.
Originally posted by Debaser
but still that was a great way to spin yourself out of the way of that article i posted. good job.
Tell you what I'll do. I'm gonna go grab about five 1000 word essays from the Heritage Foundation web site that contradict the one you posted and post everyone of them here. Will you promise to read and respond to each of them? If not, then shut the fuck up. I have no responsibility to respond to something you went and found in place of your own pitiful arguments. You haven't responded to even half of the facts I've offered. Why should I respond to something you didn't even write?
Originally posted by Debaser
obviously partisan? hey, look in the mirror.
No shit, but here's the difference: you don't see me running off to obscure websites and posting arguments to back up what I never could.
Debaser
05-22-2004, 12:40 AM
I dunno about you, but I learn stuff from reading. so if I post something that's not in my own words, it's somehow invalid? go ahead and try to find an article to dispute the neocominist article.
The "facts" you lay out are all economic theory. The "facts" I lay out is that scoreboard that you cannot dispute. I love how when I point out the high unemployment rate, you come back inferring that we somehow need an unemployment rate for the good of the economy. Tell that to the people out of work. Go and lecture the 1,300 people laid off from the Timken factory that they were fired by their millionaire bosses for the good of the country and economy. And then explain to me how that scoreboard means we should have another 4 years of bush. And you can't use "well he didn't do it on purpose" because you already used that arguement two posts ago and its pretty stupid. oh hey, my president just fucked up the economy, but since it wasn't on purpose, its okay. nothing you say can physically change that scoreboard. you retort with "uhhh well that didn't answer my questions"--fool, it's not there to answer your questions. it's there to show you that something is very very wrong and it needs to be fixed. all your words to not offer any fix. all your words amount to poor excuses to try to keep people's eyes off that scoreboard.
Nimrod's Son
05-22-2004, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
ah, tweedy, you are a master spinner. i commend you for that. All I want to do now is point to the metaphorical "scoreboard".
-the ultra slow economic recovery
-the high unemployment rate
-the quagmire in iraq
-the largest budget deficit in 20 years
-the tax cut while the country is at war
-the incredible gas prices
-the inflammatory expose' books by former members of bush's own administration woodward & o'neil.
scoreboard.
i know i know, you can write endlessly to spin all those as not the fault of the bushies, but nevertheless you can't change that scoreboard. the end. kthxbye. I'm not even going to touch this scoreboard thing here, because this thread is supposed to be about the economy and you keep bringing up irrlevant shit.
tweedyburd
05-22-2004, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I'm not even going to touch this scoreboard thing here, because this thread is supposed to be about the economy and you keep bringing up irrlevant shit.
That's the only way he can divert attention away from what's actually being discussed, because he lost the argument about mid-way through Page 2. Any time someone asks for answers, gets them, does not reply and then goes off on generalizing and hemming and hawing, you know the debate is over.
Debaser, at the beginning of this thread, you wanted answers as to why this plant closed, why the the unemployment rate is "high," etc. When I answered why, you didn't even bother to respond, instead posting charts that were void of any context, articles that are barely on topic and generally avoiding people's real responses. When I and others came back with completely relevant and on-topic responses, you got mad and took the argument elsewhere because you realized you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, and that you're just grasping for straws. Score board? What a bunch of shit. I thought the point of this thread was to discuss what we thought determines the state of the current economy. You're basically doing what you did in the Mandella thread--veering off topic so you can take one more opportunity to tell us how much you hate Bush, all in an effort to deflect attention away from your ignorance of the topic at hand. But this is what you do in every thread: when the going gets tough for you, and the questions and answers become a little more complicated than what you think you know, you just throw up your hands and go back to ole faithful: the "Scoreboard."
Oh, and lay off the cynical, insincere "tell that to the families" bullshit. You have absolutely no sense of perspective and are simply trying to make arguments based on emotion, not reason. I could just as well say "tell that to the families" if you said the 4.8 percent under Clinton was a good rate. The simple fact is 5.5-5.6 is not a bad unemployment rate, especially considering where we've been (AS I SAID EARLIER). You don't have a good enough understanding of this topic to even know how the Phillips Curve works.
You can't even answer the most base of rebuttals, instead coming up with lame excuses about how it's all "theory" and that it's out of bounds for you. If what I'm posting is "theory," then I can just as well say the same about that article because it's all ideas and sollutions. So, if you're not going to answer my valid responses, why should I bother answering something you didn't even write which is just as much "theory" as what I've written? I don't need to go grab a bunch of articles to shoot holes in your arguments--I've done that myself. You haven't even attempted to answer my explanation about the plant's closing being a product of the free-trade system. That's not theory, hoss. That's a completely valid and accurate point to make when you ask why this plant closed. Did you ever consider that the answers I'm giving you and the questions I'm posing to you are just not the answers and questions you want?
You seem to think that we live under a system that can be explained in little safe, simple soundbites, completely ignorant of the intricacies and smorgasbord of factors which determine how healthy the job market and economy is. To you, perception is everything. That's why you will be stuck in a state of confusion and denial as this economy rebounds and possibly booms, creating a million or more jobs by Nov.
Debaser
05-22-2004, 12:12 PM
yeah don't "touch" the scoreboard, because somehow in your minds what's actually happening in real life here and now in this country is "irrelevant".
Nimrod's Son
05-22-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
yeah don't "touch" the scoreboard, because somehow in your minds what's actually happening in real life here and now in this country is "irrelevant". Uh, we wee talking about the economy, you got pwned and in response made a list of things competely unrelated to the discussion to prove that "Bush is bad."
I'd call that pretty darned irrelevant.
Mariner
05-22-2004, 01:32 PM
OK, fine, scoreboard:
Originally posted by Debaser -the ultra slow economic recovery.
Patience. A 3-4 year slump is understandable given the huge transition the U.S.'s economy (and economies around the world) are making. Pile the arrival of large-scale terrorism on U.S. shores and the ensuing global political mess/conflicts, and of course it's taken a while to recover.
-the high unemployment rate
See above. The economy goes in cycles. The rate has been higher and it appears to be getting better. Implying that a high unemployment rate over one relatively short time interval means that the economy as a whole is rotten is like calling someone chronically depressed because they're feeling down in the dumps for an afternoon.
-the quagmire in iraq
No one here is praising Bush & Co. for their part in this whole situation, but this is not the subject that you focused on earlier in the thread, and like Nimrod and others said, it's largely irrelevant to your discussion of tax policy and the economy.
-the largest budget deficit in 20 years/the tax cut while the country is at war
No one here would argue that Bush & Co.'s handling of government fiscal policy is faulty at best, horribly ill-conceived at worst, but, again, this is outside the scope of the discussion you set up in the rest of this thread, which many here feel you have not successfully carried out. Whether or not you agree with them as to the success or completeness of your arguments, at least give some lip service to not getting ahead of yourself.
-the incredible gas prices
This has nothing to do with the relationship with tax policy and the economy. The world is beginning to come to grips with a finite resource, and on top of that China's economy is undergoing a tremendous growth explosion and is consuming hundreds of millions of tons of the world's basic construction and energy raw materials.
-the inflammatory expose' books by former members of bush's own administration woodward & o'neil.
You're way off-topic. It seems like you want/need to start a new more general anti-bush thread, but don't get too excited; I don't think it will be too controversial.
scoreboard.
Indeed.
jczeroman
05-22-2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Mariner
Indeed.
woax... :cool:
Debaser
05-22-2004, 10:29 PM
tweedy,
Well today, I decided to re-read this thread to assess how this thread de-railed into such a clusterfuck. And I think I know what has happened.
I intended this thread as a subjective attack on Bush's economic policy. Halfway through this you began rebutting me as if this thread was an attack on supply-side economics. You know what, I have no real qualms against supply-side economics, I know that it works...but in moderation. I think Bush's economic policy is taking supply-side to the extreme. So I am not slamming supply side economics (never did i dispute the economic growth in the reagan era), I am slamming Bush taking supply-side to0 far to the point that I believe it has delayed the economic recovery (this is the 3rd time that bush has slashed taxes--3rd time! and bush is cutting taxes while we're at war -- uh doesn't the govt really need money right now -- uh and the deficit, too). While the economy is still in its weakened state, slashing taxes for the investor class did not spur job growth because these people worried about the economy were saving the extra money they were getting instead of investing it. Then the other real issue I wanted to argue about was Bush's plan to abolish the estate tax, which I cannot fathom what sense that makes for reasons stated earlier in this thread.
I kept railing away against bush policy and results and you kept on the supply-side economic theory which you think I ignored but in reality I never thought it was really relevant cuz I'm talking about bush. And bush is not exactly employing reaganomics here is he?
oh p.s. mariner,
your spinning made me dizzy. meh.
tweedyburd
05-23-2004, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
You know what, I have no real qualms against supply-side economics, I know that it works...but in moderation. I think Bush's economic policy is taking supply-side to the extreme.
Actually, even Kennedy's tax cuts--and especially Reagan's--were a higher percentage of GDP at the time. So there's really nothing extreme about Bush's tax cuts as far as the history of supply-side goes. The 2003 cut was less than one percent of a GDP of $155 trillion over the next 10 years. Reagan's last cut in '83 was almost 4 percent of GDP at the time. Moreover, Bush's current tax bill reduced the top rate to 35 percent, but that's still about seven percentage points higher than the top rate in the late 1980s. Not exactly extreme.
I don't really buy the argument that Bush's supply-side cuts slowed the recovery. If investors are hesitant to take risks during an economic slump, why would Joe Consumer be any different? Spending is spending. If the economy sucks and free trade has scared you into believing you might lose your job down at the plant, you aren't going to be spending money from your tax cut on that Game Cube, that new TV, and definitely not new cars, microwaves, etc.
But just for sake of argument, let's say Bush's tax cuts did slow the recovery. The long term is shaping up to be a possible boom, because now that consumer confidence is back up, investors are shifting and creating lots of new growth and opportunities. That would probably not be happening now if the tax cuts were tilted more toward timely consumer spending. So, even taking your own argument, which is better--a short term recovery but little long term security, or a slow period followed by extensive growth based on long-term, job-creating investor confidence? And hell, even Greenspan endorsed Bush's cuts as necessary to sustain continued growth.
I, too, have been disappointed in Bush's reckless domestic spending, but another thing to keep in mind is, what if Bush hadn't maintained domestic spending levels during this time? I'm pretty sure the cries of being "out of touch" with the common man, and the "uncaring president" would've far outweighed the current liberal protests over the deficits.
Originally posted by Debaser
I kept railing away against bush policy and results and you kept on the supply-side economic theory which you think I ignored but in reality I never thought it was really relevant cuz I'm talking about bush. And bush is not exactly employing reaganomics here is he?.
Bush's tax policy is very Reagan-esque. The only difference is we're fighting an actual war instead of a cold war. It's understandable that Bush is criticized for cutting taxes in war time, but then there's also no other president I can remember who had to deal with a huge economic slump and a costly war at the same time (the depression ended long before America's involvement in WWII). It's easy to criticize Bush for cutting taxes in war time, but how much worse might the economy have been otherwise?
But as far as this post, I think it officially derailed when you realized you couldn't lay things like the Timken closing at Bush's feet, for reasons I've already gone over extensively.
Originally posted by Debaser
oh p.s. mariner,
your spinning made me dizzy. meh.
Nice dodge.
Mariner
05-23-2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by tweedyburd
Nice dodge.
Thanks, man. Debaser, how was I spinning at all?
jczeroman
05-24-2004, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Mariner
Thanks, man. Debaser, how was I spinning at all?
You must have been spinning as you wrote it -- twirling as you typed!