George W. Bush's qualifications to be President

So from your information about 20 percent of the wealthiest pay 63.5 percent of all taxes. Then the next 1 percent of the richest americans pay a total of 20.1 percent. So that is 83.6 percent of all the tax is paid by the richest americans. I am not one of them, but I think they deserve a tax break for taking care of oh i dont know 84 percent of the tax load.This message has been edited by Jackal25, 09-01-2004 05:35 PM

I have nothing against keeping taxes to a minimum, but why do these people you mention "deserve" a tax break more than anyone else? Indeed, at this very moment in time why should we be considering tax breaks?The richest 1 percent have how much of the wealth? The top 20% have how much of the wealth? How much do they need to live on? Perhaps this is why they are slated to pay more in general?Now lets look at expenditures. We have a global war on terror with a massive hole sitting in Iraq just eating up money. We also have new departments and agencies at home.Remember fiscal conservatism? That was not just tax breaks, it was reasonable spending in order to create reasonable tax breaks.With the massive spending going on, how can we afford tax breaks, and if so why do the richest "deserve" a tax break? So that the poor and middle class can foot the bill over the long haul? The poor and middle class "deserve" this?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

but I think they deserve a tax break for taking care of oh i dont know 84 percent of the tax load.

---

I'll use an analogy I read somewhere a decade or so ago about the relative consumer power of the wealthiest people compared to middle class people.As a percentage of our relative income levels, a Porche is the same to Bill Gates as a can of Coke is to us.Therefore, the wealthiest people can get taxed at a much higher rate than middle class people and not have it affect their ability to send their kids to school, start businesses, conduct business, buy homes, travel, take vacations, retire early, invest, give to charity, etc..
They could take on even more of the burden and not feel it.By contrast, middle class people are greatly affected by the tax burden they currently shoulder, making it difficult for them to send their kids to college, start businesses, travel, invest, save for retirement, retire at a reasonable age, purchase housing, etc.The reason the wealthiest people pay the most taxes is because they hold a hugely disproportionate amount of the nation's wealth, not because they are "shouldering any burden".It isn't a burden to them, but it is a burden to the middle class.Bush has just shifted the tax burden away from the people who can most afford to pay it without feeling it and onto the people who are already struggling to get ahead.Therefore, Bush is encouraging the trend in the US in which the few rich posess more and more of the nation's wealth and the many middle class and poor people are competing for the remaining, dwindling piece of the pie.

Whatever, do you not mind paying more of the tax burden while wealthy people pay less of the tax burden?
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

Whatever, do you not mind paying more of the tax burden while wealthy people pay less of the tax burden?MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

Really?I know that the wealthy enjoy considerably greater access to government services and representatives than I do. The governor of Missouri doesn't give a good goddamn what I think; but if I was in a position to donate millions to his campaign, I know he'd take my call personally.There's about a thousand examples of the rich enjoying better treatment from the government than I do; I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to pay more for it. It's just their fair share, after all.

Put it this way -- it is a user fee for being in the country that allows them to be that wealthy. If they didn't like it they could move to another country (they have the means and the connections). They haven't -- what does that tell you about the reality of the tax "burden" eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Not exactly.I don't propose to tax every rich person simply because some how I "allowed" them to get rich. I'm not claiming to have any part in the creation of their wealth.But the police would take considerably greater interest if Bill Gates' house were robbed or his daughter raped; much greater interest that if that were to happen to me or mine.If I get caught smoking marijuana, I go to jail. Manditory sentencing, etc. On the other hand, Bill Gates' daughter would get some bullshit community service or whatever.We all have heard of "celebrity justice", etc. It's a very real privledge of being wealthy and affluent. I don't think its unreasonable to exact a tax surcharge for that privledge.Paying for what you use. Isn't that the American way? Well, the rich use more than the rest of us.

It has nothing to do with "fair". It's "power". It's the people's power to stick it to them as much as they can take (and the people don't feel too guilty), and the wealthy's power to try to hold on. There is no absolute on what is fair in this case. In one respect, "fair" is equal percent of income, and as you suggest, another interpretation could be "burden" on standard of living. That is a socialistic interpretation, but in that view, I guess that is "fair". In any case, I don't think it's fair to use the term fair.

Well, ok, fuck the rich. I can work with that.

You are missing the point. Not you: the economic system here in the US, the system that is guarded by the government from the evils of outside influences, the system protected by the government and thus benefits from it. the person benefits from the system, the system benefits from the government, the government should benefit from the person. clear?I should also be clear, that I don't think the tax should be on "income" as that is as lowsy a marker as "unemployment" (and hence all the correcteions and deductions yada yada) it should be on capital gains: if you are worth more this year than last then pay a tax on that basis.This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-02-2004 08:22 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Bump for whatever...Helloooo??Whatever, do you not mind paying more of the tax burden while wealthy people pay less of the tax burden?MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

schrafinator, To quote Oral Roberts well sort of you need to plant seed, for increase, etc...P.S. If you tax the local quick stops as big buisness, you are causing the seed to not to grow into jobs, what you have to think about is big government means more taxes to do what you could do for yourself, this was what TJ was talking about to less government is best when the people discipline themselves, too me means, this will result in less taxes to all the people, etc...What Kerry wants to do is stifle the recovery, which will mean your mutual funds will lose money, cause they will be taxed to death, what reason would there be to stay solvent in america, if you penalize companies that outsourced yet stayed in America(are you not telling them to flee Kerrys wrath), but to cause less jobs for Americans, you need to plant seed for growth, with growth it will provide jobs, and with less government the people will dicipline themselves (TJ quote),,, the opposite holds true with more government, people don't discipline themselves, big brother will red tape industry to death, etc...If this is what you want, then Kerry is your man, he doesn't understand the seed concept, I never liked free trade because of the industries leaving our country, but don't like Kerry expounding upon the problem by taxing to death the industries remaining, so to fund selfish socialistic rubber stamp (red tape) programs.This message has been edited by whatever, 09-08-2004 11:42 PM

RAZD says that federal taxes:

quote:

---

...should be on capital gains: if you are worth more this year than last then pay a tax on that basis.

---

I'm not a tax expert so I must concede that your idea might be perfectly sound. I don't see it, though. How would your system work in a time of serious economic downturn, such as in a steep recession or depression?

1) "If you tax the local quick stops as big businesses"Who is proposing that? Democratic tax policy is about "helping the little guy", so to speak. Be it small businesses or the poor/middle class.2) "What Kerry wants to do is stifle the recovery"Please tell me that you're kidding.3) "Which means your mutual funds will lose money, cause they will be taxed to death"Are you referring to the mutual company or to private assets held in mutual funds? If you're referring to the former, overhead is a very small percentage of mutual funds costs. A small percentage increase to a small percentage is almost negligable. If you're referring to the latter, if you're not in the top couple percent, you'll see your tax burden stay the same or drop.3) "what reason would there be to stay solvent in America"A local market of 290 million people with the highest per-capita income in the world, with a highly trained workforce and ample tech infrastructure? Nah, that couldn't be it...Besides, forget not that the US has a proportionally *low* tax burden compared to most industrualized nations. We would simply be recentering.4) "With less government, people will discipline themselves"Yes, we had a term for that period of near complete corporate deregulation - you may have heard of "the industrial revolution". Some associated terms you might have heard are "60 hour work weeks", "child labor", and "robber barons". Much later, but still during a period of "regulate yourselves", you might have heard of "Black Thursday".5) "taxing to death the remaining industries"Apparently, you've never looked at Kerry's tax policy, which actually involves cuts for businesses to prevent outsourcing. The increases in revenue are not on businesses, but undoing the irresponsible upper bracket cuts that Bush did that left us with such a huge defecit (one which even Bush's budgeters aren't seen a soon end to, let alone the CBO)(p.s. - hey everyone I may not be back often, but I was bored tonight, and remembered this site )