Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/11/2004 3:01:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 3:05:43 PM EST by mtechgunman]
Someone explain these cuts to me.


Kerry says (i don't believe a damn word from his mouth) that bush gives a tax cut to the wealthy.

Who recieved these cuts? Why did bush create these cuts? What did it do for our country and our economy?

i was talking with a guy the other day, and he gave one explination for his cuts, in the form of a question:

"have you ever been hired by a poor person?"

sounds logical to me.

Edjumacate me on the Bush Tax cuts.

thanky in advance,

Mtechgunman


ETA: I don't really want a Kerry bashin thread, as there are already enough of those, i just want to know about the cuts. I already know that kerry would be bad for our country.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 3:17:00 PM EST
EVERYONE received the cuts. The wealthy pay the most taxes, so they got the most money back in absolute dollar terms. The poorest 50% of taxpayers only pay about 4% of the income taxes, so it's little wonder that a tax rate cut doesn't help them as much as the taxpayers who actually pay the majority of the taxes. Kerry apparently wants to buy the majority's vote by promising that the 4% figure will go down to zero (and they'll also get health care paid for by the wealthy). I think that's unfair and a blatant attempt to buy votes and redistribute wealth ala Joe Stalin. (No, I don't make more than $200k per year but I'd like to some day).
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 3:17:16 PM EST
Okay, let's see if I can make this simple.

I've owned my company for 25 years. If I can bring my services to market better, cheaper and more timely than the other guy, I win. Clients flock to my door, money flows in. Therefore, I hire more people, and buy mor equipment because more clients want more of my services.

Where I get killed is what it costs to hire one person and the taxes I pay to buy equipment, put a roof over the employees and the paper trail that follows all of it. The numbers are stacked against me and it makes me less "competitive" and therefore I hire less people and buy less equipment. Pretty simple.

I'd like one person to explain to me what wealthy "is"?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 3:19:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By danno-in-michigan:
EVERYONE received the cuts. The wealthy pay the most taxes, so they got the most money back in absolute dollar terms. The poorest 50% of taxpayers only pay about 4% of the income taxes, so it's little wonder that a tax rate cut doesn't help them as much as the taxpayers who actually pay the majority of the taxes. Kerry apparently wants to buy the majority's vote by promising that the 4% figure will go down to zero (and they'll also get health care paid for by the wealthy). I think that's unfair and a blatant attempt to buy votes and redistribute wealth ala Joe Stalin. (No, I don't make more than $200k per year but I'd like to some day).



Couldn't say it better.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 3:22:02 PM EST
Correct me if i am wrong here:


I believe that by not having "a lot" of taxes (in percentages) everyone wins.

Even the country.

with fewer taxes, that is money in the pockets of everyone, and with money in the pockets of everyone, people buy more things, and will be basically "investing in the country".

Seems as though "high" taxes hurts more than it helps, because there is less money floating around.

What am i missing here?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 3:24:18 PM EST
When Kerry says that he cut taxes for people making over $200,000 a year, he wants you to forget that most people making that kind of money own their own business and employ others.

By cutting taxes for business owners, it helps create jobs and a better economy.

Kerry just wants you to be pissed that the "rich" got a tax cut when EVERYONE got a tax cut.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 3:26:24 PM EST

When Kerry says that he cut taxes for people making over $200,000 a year, he wants you to forget that most people making that kind of money own their own business and employ others.

By cutting taxes for business owners, it helps create jobs and a better economy.

Kerry just wants you to be pissed that the "rich" got a tax cut when EVERYONE got a tax cut.



that sounds like the reasoning for my buddy's statement:

"Have you ever been hired by a poor person?"

Like i said, i don't believe anything that comes outta that guys mouth.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 3:31:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By mtechgunman:

that sounds like the reasoning for my buddy's statement:

"Have you ever been hired by a poor person?"

Like i said, i don't believe anything that comes outta that guys mouth.



Well, in terms of percentage the lowest income tax bracket got the biggest tax cut, from 15 to 10 percent, a 33% reduction, while the highest tax bracket got cut from 38% to I think 33 or 34 percent, a 10-11% reduction. And of course the lowest bracket of all, the poor, don't pay any income taxes, so it's no wonder it didn't help them.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:19:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mr-T:
And of course the lowest bracket of all, the poor, don't pay any income taxes, so it's no wonder it didn't help them.




Ahhh.....and thats the kicker. Kerry wants these people to get money back even tho they didnt pay ANYTHING into the system. A co worker of mine told me he did his brother in laws taxes and that he got over $200 more than he paid in. WTF? Income redistribution?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:20:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By danno-in-michigan:

EVERYONE received the cuts. .




EVERYONE who PAID taxes.


There is a LARGE percentage of the population that doesn't pay taxes.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:21:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By danno-in-michigan:

EVERYONE received the cuts. .




EVERYONE who PAID taxes.


There is a LARGE percentage of the population that doesn't pay taxes.



like Willie Nelson
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:26:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By 1776:

Originally Posted By Mr-T:
And of course the lowest bracket of all, the poor, don't pay any income taxes, so it's no wonder it didn't help them.




Ahhh.....and thats the kicker. Kerry wants these people to get money back even tho they didnt pay ANYTHING into the system. A co worker of mine told me he did his brother in laws taxes and that he got over $200 more than he paid in. WTF? Income redistribution?



That pretty much seems what it equates to. Putting so much money taken from the upper and middle class taxpayers into social programs like welfare actually hurt their own cause most of the time. A perfect example would be someone who makes so little money yet gets so much from welfare to the point where they stay on welfare and choose to live life that way. They have no incentive to try to get off of welfare.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:27:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 5:29:02 PM EST by Winston_Wolf]
... It is a Democrats nature to raise taxes. When Kerry said he would not raise taxes on incomes below $200K/annum in his first term, he was flat out lying to the middle class to cultivate votes.

... Mark my word, if that man gets in office your taxes will go up, you will have less cash on hand. Your money will go to those too lazy or too inept and irresponsible to take hold of their financial lives. That's the name of the game with socialism.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:30:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By 1776:
Ahhh.....and thats the kicker. Kerry wants these people to get money back even tho they didnt pay ANYTHING into the system. A co worker of mine told me he did his brother in laws taxes and that he got over $200 more than he paid in. WTF? Income redistribution?



Yup, this pisses me off to no end. Take the EITC (Earned income tax credit). This little gem is effectively a receipt from the government of 'taxes paid', when you did nothing more than qualify. Thus, when doing your taxes and you would have paid 0 anyway, because you don't make much, you get a 'refund' check for your full EITC qualified amount. OUTRAGEOUS! I know the plan was designed to help the poor who actually work, but it's merely a cash payout masked as a 'tax incentive'.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:40:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... It is a Democrats nature to raise taxes. When Kerry said he would not raise taxes on incomes below $200K/annum in his first term, he was flat out lying to the middle class to cultivate votes.

... Mark my word, if that man gets in office your taxes will go up, you will have less cash on hand. Your money will go to those too lazy or too inept and irresponsible to take hold of their financial lives. That's the name of the game with socialism.



I sincerely hope that anyone with half a brain realizes how true this is......
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:44:35 PM EST

A co worker of mine told me he did his brother in laws taxes and that he got over $200 more than he paid in. WTF? Income redistribution?

It's called earned income tax credit (EIC). I think I got it three out of the past four years. The purpose of the tax is to encourage people to work to help the economy. Minimum wage isn't much of an incentive, and the EITC does help get some people to work. I use it as a selling point when talking to guys about working for us. For me, I already work seven days a week and other than going out of town for weddings, I haven't had a single day off in years, so I need all the help I can get. I simply can't work enough to pay the bills.z
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 5:45:41 PM EST
What Bush fails to mention is that the rich business owners create jobs. Having a tax break they are more likely to invest in to more jobs. It's quite simple.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:27:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 8:28:32 AM EST by Ramjet]
Hey Mtechgunman, I didn't think about this when you asked about taxes but here is a good example of something we just passed on last month.

The photo of the house below is where we planned to move my company. I own an Advertising Design firm and we were presented this house that was owned by the local historical assocation. The price tag wasn't bad and it had the room we needed.



Although the house itself needed much work and we were prepared to pour much capital into it to bring it code and make it useful, guess what killed it?

Taxes.

The property taxes on this crippled our bottom line. When you added everything we would sink into it, the tax burden alone made the project infeasible. Even if we took a few tax batement programs (which take so much time for approval) the project wasn't attractive because of the huge millstone around our neck called taxes. What was funny is when we asked the tax department about value, they appeared just just make up a number. I couldn't figure out what extra services I was going to get for such a steep price tag.

Now we could have purchased it and moved our hourly rate up to cover it but we think a few clients would have walked over the sticker shock. So, because of the taxes on this effort, we couldn't find a comfortable balance for my company.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:30:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 8:31:47 AM EST by The_Macallan]
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:34:09 AM EST
"Rich people" were paying taxes at close to a four times higher rate under Clinton. A 10 percent reduction of 40 percent is more than a 10 percent reduction of 10 percent.

Lower taxes are almost always good for the economy. I like my tax cuts, probably saved me several thousand $$$ the past few years.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:37:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By danno-in-michigan:

EVERYONE received the cuts. .




EVERYONE who PAID taxes.


There is a LARGE percentage of the population that doesn't pay taxes.



Income taxes maybe..but EVERYONE pays taxes in one way or another.

SGatr15
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:37:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 8:44:00 AM EST by garandman]
Small business (typically individually owned sub-chapter S businesses, which are taxed at personal income tax rates) are resposaible for MOST job creation in the US today.

When you tax these sub-S businesses less, they have more disposable income. When they have more disposable income, they HIRE people. THose new hires increase the productivity and profits of the sub-S business which leads to more expansion. Which leads to more hiring. Which leads to more to more expansion...you get the idea.

In addition, those new hires spend their new disposable income with other businesses, who in order to meet increased demand must hire more people.

Stated another way, cuts in personal income tax rates lead to EXPONENTIAL new hiring.

Or simply, have you ever been hired by a poor person???

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:39:39 AM EST
Rush has a really nice breakdown of who shares the tax burden on his site. Talk about unfair...
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:56:42 AM EST
In Friday night's debate, sKerry kept telling us that the "rich" got $89B in tax cuts last year. Now he wants to roll that back and give more tax cuts to the "middle class." Don't forget to add all the spending required to fulfill the promises that he and little chucky (edwards) have been promising in their debates and you have a formula for either increased deficit spending or across the board tax increases on everybody.
Top Top