| Author |
Message |
    
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1106
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2004 - 11:07 pm: |     |
Excerpted from the Washington Post:
"The proposed cuts, in dollar terms, will have little impact on the budget deficit, which the White House put at $521 billion this year. . . . The budget calls for $1.24 trillion in additional tax cuts over the next decade, much of it aimed at the wealthy, critics say. Fiscal discipline, they say, is expected on only one side of the ledger.
"Meanwhile, the programs Bush seeks to eliminate will follow him on the campaign trail. Under his budget, the $247 million Even Start family literacy program would be eliminated. The Eisenhower regional math and science consortiums and the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Math and Science Education would be killed. HOPE VI, a $149 million program to revitalize blighted housing projects, would go.
"Also gone: dropout-prevention efforts, elementary and secondary school counseling assistance, aid to migrant and seasonal farmworkers, the Smaller Learning Communities initiative, and a bevy of local law enforcement assistance programs.
"Even as the economy fails to generate significant job growth, Bush would slice federal vocational and adult education funding by 35 percent, from $2.1 billion to $1.4 billion. Assistance for workers dislocated by the North American Free Trade Agreement would be eliminated. Rural development assistance would be cut, as would housing aid for Native Americans and the elderly. The foreign aid budget would dramatically boost funding to combat the spread of AIDS, but it would also slice $404 million from child-survival and child-disease programs. . . .
"Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark pronounced himself "shocked," saying, "Today's budget proposal makes it clear what President Bush's priorities are: tax cuts for the rich and tough luck for everyone else."
Full article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6881-2004Feb2.html
|
mfpark
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 189
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 8:37 am: | |
Okay, where are the true conservatives on this issue? I know where the liberals will come down on it, but how can an economic conservative back this budget proposal or this president?
In other words, if Bush gets what he wants, eventually the Federal government will only fund the military, while states and towns are left to fund everything else.
This is not the budget of a fiscal conservative. It is a radical restructuring of the role of the government in the economy. That is the terms of the debate--not conservative against liberal, but radical against liberal.
I won't even get into the political cynicism in this budget (he knows the "cuts" he proposes won't ever pass while no one will question military/FBI increases in an election year), except to say that the deficit will soar even more and he darn well knows it. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 833
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
Before I give you a conservative answer, where DO liberals come down on this? Please explain. How does any candidate rail about deficits while at the same time spending any deficit reductions on domestic handouts? One liberal wants to cancel all tax cuts and spend it all on more healthcare. Some liberals only want to cut the tax cuts of the "rich." And all of them want to spend and add to the deficit.
And since you brought it up, the only constitutionally mandated function of the federal government is to provide for the common defense. I'm not saying that's the only thing they should be doing, but I'd like to go back and start over in assigning responsibilities. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 465
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:05 pm: | |
Don't know the liberals you are talking about.
Here's an idea. how about some...balance. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1904
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
quote:And since you brought it up, the only constitutionally mandated function of the federal government is to provide for the common defense.
Not true. Article one section eight says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..." (emphasis added)
Further:
"...to regulate commerce...", "establish post offices and post roads...", "...promote the progress of science and useful arts..."
So where does this liberal come down? There are things we need to do within our borders to promote the general welfare, and we can't afford them. The tax cuts went too far. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 882
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
"The tax cuts went too far."
But the spending is just right. Spoken like a true liberal.
Where is the guarantee that if tax cuts are repealed (and if they are they should be repealed for everyone not just the "rich") that spending will be held in check? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 834
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Yes true. Provide specifically means pay for it. Promote does not. The correct phrase is "provide for the common defense and PROMOTE the general welfare."
Try paying your family's bills by promoting them. It doesn't work. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 835
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:37 pm: | |
And what I should have been clearer on, was the the military is the only area (and I should have included law enforcement) that the federal govt is supposed to pay for as outlined by Constitution. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1909
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
Dead wrong. See the House of Representatives and National Archives sites for presumably authoritative transcripts, or the National Archives image of the original document, all of which DO NOT include the word "promote".
Perhaps you'd like to re-adjust your thinking about the role of the Federal government based on this new information.
sportsnut: yes, if the spending is right, but the revenue is wrong, then the revenue should be fixed. What guarantee is there? None. But we were running surpluses before these ideologues took over. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 836
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Tom....as Mary Poppins sang -- 'let's start at the very beginning....a very good place to start.'
This is how the Constitution starts:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 944
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 1:25 pm: | |
You are both right but Tom is more right. He is quoting from article I secton 8 which actually enumerates the powers givent to Congress while cjc is quoting the peramble which is just rhetoric. Why the language is different I have no idea. Interesting question though. |
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 945
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 1:28 pm: | |
On the substantive qustion maybe now is not the time to go to the Moon or fund a Missle Defense System that does not work. Maybe we should not pay HMO's more to care for Medicare patients and maybe we should let Medicare negotiate with pharmacutial companies. But these would be cuts that would effect big businesses that Bush needs. So by all means lets cut job training instead. I mean, look at all the new jobs Bush's policies have created already. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1910
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
I stand half-corrected. It sounds as though the congress should promote and provide for the general welfare. Which is very good.
Thanks for the clarification, ashear. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 838
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 2:05 pm: | |
Thanks from me as well. I however think The Founders got it right the first time they tried writing it.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1912
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Well we don't really know what order they were written in. But there they both are, if you want to strictly construct it.
Why do you hate America so much?  |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 840
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 3:01 pm: | |
Because I and my friends are tired of paying for it (and you) all by ourselves. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1913
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
That's pretty funny. I just got my W-2 for 2003, and I don't get the sense that anybody is paying for me! |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4519
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 3:53 pm: | |
cjc, could I suggest a relocation to a tax haven such as Bermuda or the Caymans? No personal income tax there. 
On the other hand if you had the misfortune of living in the UK, France or Germany your tax bill would be a heck of a lot higher and your compensation a heck of a lot less.  |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6297
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Halliburton wins for best tax haven location (one of several for them): Vanuatu |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1914
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 8:53 pm: | |
I'd like to point out that the preamble to the constitution consists of one sentence, that sentence beginning with the words, "We the People..."
Are we forbidden from providing? Is the congress prohibited from promoting? Do the people promote and the congress provides? Whatever. Bottom line, the USA was never intended to be a taxless libertarian paradise.
Go find that tax haven if you don't like it. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 886
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
tom I don't think anyone here is arguing that the U.S. become a tax haven. I could just as easily tell you to move to Europe since you seem to think that you don't pay enough in taxes.
"That's pretty funny. I just got my W-2 for 2003, and I don't get the sense that anybody is paying for me!"
Funny I feel the same way. The only difference is that you feel that you should be paying even more whereas I feel that I pay just enough. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1915
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
well as the old saying goes, "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree."
Since the feds are borrowing about one in five dollars, it's clear that somebody has to pay more.
Corporate income taxes are at near-record lows while profitable firms are allowed to go offshore with their pentagon contracts;
there are people for whom a $10,000,000 estate-tax ceiling isn't high enough;
and there are people who make their money sitting by the pool waiting for the dividend checks to arrive, while people with jobs (like you and me, sportsnut and cjc) pay higher rates for the national defense which keeps them safe and secure.
(Of course if Cheney & Co. have their way they'll be paying zero.)
You really want to defend these people?
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 398
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Not to mention that it's the generally Democratic states that pay the most into the Federal system, and the generally Republican states that get the greatest benefit from subsidies, although you'd never believe it from they way they talk.
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1986
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
How can all these jobs being sent offshore be good for tax revenues? Why isn't anyone discussing that?
OK, never mind. Have a look at progressive income taxes in yesterday and today's Andrew Tobias's columns:
http://www.andrewtobias.com/newcolumns/040203.html
and
http://www.andrewtobias.com/newcolumns/040204.html
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 887
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 11:02 am: | |
Surely you can't be arguing for higher corporate taxes as you must know that increased operating expenses would be passed on to all consumers, not just the "wealthy" taxpayers. Higher corporate taxes would lead to an across the board regressive type taxation. Just the type of thing you guys rail against all the time.
Why do you begrudge people who sit by the pool collecting dividend checks? Because they were lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family? What about lottery winners who invest their money in stocks that pay dividends? Surely they didn't do anything to "earn" their pay yet they get the same breaks. Why is it that the picture of people who get dividends is one of those that somehow don't deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor or that of their ancestors?
How will Cheney & Co. be paying zero? I must have missed that proposal. If you have the time or the inclination check out the "tax shelter" legislation currently being worked on. That should calm some of your fears about big bad corporations and the companies that promote such shelters. Its amazing how it took a republican dominated government to finally address the issue. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 468
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
Interesting article:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094801/ |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1916
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
quote:Why is it that the picture of people who get dividends is one of those that somehow don't deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor or that of their ancestors?
Why should they be more entitled to enjoy the fruits of their (or their grandparents') labors more than we workers? Is there something extra extra special about them that they deserve to be carried on our backs?
I was a little vague: it's been proposed to eliminate the dividend tax altogether. These people not only will be paying less than us, they'll be paying nothing. Tell me this is right.
And if corporations pay more tax, so what. Taxes are always a friction on the economy, but that's the way it's got to be. Maybe the CEOs won't make 450x what their workers do. Maybe they'll cut back on helicopter rides and $600 shower curtains. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 888
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 11:55 am: | |
tom maybe you should start investing in dividend paying stocks. The dividend tax will never be eliminated.
As for CEO compensation - I'll grant you that its excessive but for every CEO that spends $600 for a shower curtain there are hundreds more who don't. |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6299
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
Yeah.. they spend more. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 889
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
And your proof is? |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4534
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 2:13 pm: | |
Tom - Great find on the Andrew Tobias columns. They explain the difference between published and actual tax rates. It also touches on the fact that payroll tax (Social Security) has a big effect on lower income earners take home pay and that the effective tax rate between someone making $50,000 and someone making $500,000 isn't much different (assuming they have Sportsnut as a tax man ).
Yeah, I know SS isn't income tax and many of the new MOL posters feel everyone should pay the same dollar amount, not percentage, but I think things are tipping a little far towards the truly wealthy.
Also as middle class and upper middle class families (which I think covers most MOL posters)think of all the neat tax breaks we get such as deducting interest and state and local taxes, not to mention 401ks, IRAs, etc.
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 890
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
Tom - those were interesting articles. Though I wonder how much of the actual surplus was created by the tax rates vs. the (as we now know to be artificially inflated bubble) revenues generated during that time.
Bobk - I wish we did get "all" those neat tax breaks. I just did a first pass of my return and I lose some of those same deductions, I lose some of my personal exemptions and got hit with an AMT liability of around 4K and don't qualify for an IRA deduction, nor education credits for my son who is in school. I could go on. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1989
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
sportsnut, I don't think anyone can make a quantitative and authoritative claim of how much the inflated bubble contributed to the surplus. But Tobias's point that the tax rates didn't hurt still stands pretty well on its own.
He makes a good case for progressive taxes. My mind is boggled when a middle income person objects to taxing richer people more. He must think he'll one day get rich, though he knows not how and has no plans. Maybe he thinks there's a rich uncle hiding somewhere, ready to bequeath a fortune to him.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4536
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Sports, this is kind of a personal question but what is your effective tax rate meaning taxes paid (including Social Security) divided by gross income?
I understand if you don't want to talk about this and probably shouldn't ask. And we Ks know all about the AMT, which I think is unfair because it really hurts those of us with large deductions because of local and state taxes here in the North East. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 891
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 3:16 pm: | |
Tom there are those around you who classify you as "rich" and seek to tax you even more.
The only real problem that I have with taxing the ultra rich is that they shouldn't be penalized for doing well. I will agree that a tax system that compels them to pay and amount commensurate with the amount of income they earn. In Tobias' article that would be the roughly 33% or somewhere thereabouts, but clearly no more.
As for middle income people objecting to taxing rich people more I can say that from my perspective I don't feel justified in taking something from someone just because I don't have it. Its about fairness. What if you were assigned a group project at work and you are much more efficient thereby finishing your work earlier than everyone else. Is it fair to then shift more of the work burden to you? Especially if you know that you'll not be compensated for the additional work? |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 892
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 3:26 pm: | |
Bobk, including federal, state, ss and medicare taxes its approx. 33-34% (depending on whether or not you include or exclude the 3K capital loss limitation. We have no substantial investment income. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 893
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 3:34 pm: | |
Also, just for fun consider the following information from a 2002 W-2 I have in my office.
Total federal, state, ss, medicare tax withheld on this W-2 only. This person makes in excess of three times what my wife and I make. Total tax burden from the w-2 is approx 37%. And that doesn't include the five figure payment that was due on their return. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1990
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 3:34 pm: | |
I realize I am rich compared to some. That's inevitable and therefore OK.
Where's the line between fair taxation and penalizing? Isn't that also a personal call? If you want lower taxes, you say your taxation level is a penalty for your success. This is an emotional response and not all that useful.
You are also using the word "taking" in an emotional way. If you object to taking, you object to taxing.
Same for the word fairness. Who can objectively say what's fair?
As for your example of workload, it's a good question, and there is no obvious answer. If I'm much more efficient and get more work done in an eight hour day, I would hope to be paid more, mostly because getting to that level of productivity took years to reach. So basically, we pay according to (among other things) amount of experience. But it's a rough gauge and thus error prone. If I become super-fast at my work, am I allowed to leave at 1pm. No, yet by your model, I should be, once I've done my official duties. If I'm done by 1pm, I get more work piled on me in the real world.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 894
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Tom - Why do you consider it ok?
I don't know where that line exists. As I said perhaps Tobias is on to something. I don't object to taking (see my response to tom) what I object to is the constant argument that the rich (you and I) don't pay our fair share of tax and that we should pay more.
If you feel you should be compensated more for doing more work then apply that to the taxes that you pay. Why don't you feel you should be able to keep more of your money for working hard? Instead what you'd get is little or no credit for the work that you did. After a while it gets disheartening. At least with the piled on work you would have the opportunity to impress your boss and likely would be compensated. Not so with paying additional taxes. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1992
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
sportsnut, then do I read you right that progressive taxes are OK but the real sin is in raising taxes, ever?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 895
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
tom is everything either/or for you? The real sin to me is that instead of controlling costs the answer always lies in raising taxes. Control costs first then look to raise taxes if needed.
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1993
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
sportsnut, the funny thing is that we are in agreement more than we appear to be. We might agree on the level of taxation, and we also agree that to balance your books, you look at both sides, spending and revenue. I know you're intimately aware of that, since you're an accountant. But it seems that the world of nails happens to match your style of hammer. You're a tax accountant, and you watch your company's expenses. I surmise that you're not involved with helping to increase your company's revenues. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
It doesn't make sense to say that it's all about expenses and revenues don't count. Same for the opposite.
I agree that we should watch the government's spending. I also feel that decreasing revenue (with tax cuts) doesn't make sense this time around, at least not the way they did it. As a cost-conscious accountant, I would expect you to agree.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 896
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Funny thing that my company just announced today that it was slashing prices in an effort to gain market share. The empahsis around here for the past few years has been to cut costs wherever possible first and now is looking at actually reducing revenue on a per customer basis in the hopes that more customers will sign up.
Its a formula that has worked before.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1917
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 4:48 pm: | |
too bad when you cut taxes it doesn't bring in any more taxpayers! |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1996
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 5:22 pm: | |
That can be a good strategy for your company, but it's not proven with taxes.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4538
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 5:55 pm: | |
Sports, I think both you and your client need some good tax advise. Both of you seem to be way above the averages for the top 1%.
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 897
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 6:34 pm: | |
While I know you're only joking most people should know that we are comparing apples and oranges. I would think that the effective rates calculated in the article are only federal income taxes. I'm not even sure if they include the AMT. The percentage I calculated includes all taxes. If it were only federal taxes it would be closer to 22%.
I wish I could do some tax planning but the reality is that with two W-2s and deductions for only mtg interest and taxes, there's not a whole lot you can do. Its funny that my return probably has about five numbers on it. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4539
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 7:27 pm: | |
Sports, I think I went a little overboard. Sometimes my mouth (actually my fingers) runs away with me, although the 30% plus numbers seemed high to me.
I think to a great degree state and local taxes are a separate issue and not part of the Great Tax Cut Debate, although I do think those of us in the Northeast get a Royal, well, yah know what I mean, with the AMT because of high state and local taxes make middle and upper middle income people look like tax dodgers of the first order.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page