kerry's speech thingy...

[Celeste]

isn't there more to the picture than just income tax...weren't capital gains taxes decreased?

[thirsty moore]

Flawd, I took the pic down because it took up the whole screen.

[Celeste]

Originally posted by thirsty moore:
  Flawd, I took the pic down because it took up the whole screen.

thank you, that shit's annoying!

[ggw]

The numbers on the link below are nowhere near what you cited.
 
 Also, this doesn't tell you anything about why the numbers changed.  Was it the effect of the Bush tax cut?  Was it capital losses?  Was it better tax-advantaged investment planning?
 
 

Originally posted by chaz:
  http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=220
 

[chaz]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  The numbers on the link below are nowhere near what you cited.
 
 
 

Be more specific please....
 
 Any way, my origional point is this - 50% of the tax cuts put in place by bush have benefited the top 1% of taxpayers.  The top 1% of taxpayers foot 25% of the total tax bill.  How can you spin that to make me believe it is fair?

[Bags]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 well, for example. . .if you made $50,000 a year and i made $1,000,000 a year, and congress lowered taxes at a flat 10%, your taxes would be lowered by $5,000 and mine would be lowered by $100,000. . .by saying the richest recieve the benefits in mis-leading. . they get the biggest deduction because they make the most money, and have a bigger pie to take from, as the above illustrates.  

It's such a misnomer to talk about flat tax reductions.  That's not what happened, there's a labyrinth of tax reform and changes that disproportionatly benefit the extremely wealthy.
 
 And, Chaz made the key point.  If you reduce taxes, you have to reduce spending in areas that don't impact/cost those you just "gave" their taxes back to (thereby nullifying the tax cut), for instance on social and locality services (no, not welfare, but the administration of local government, local services, local law enforcement/fire/highway & transportation budgets, etc).
 
 -edit- Hadn't read down and read all chaz's answers yet.

[Bags]

PS, thanks Thirsty for taking the picture off.

[chaz]

Hallelujah Bags!  Well put indeed.
 
 What does GGW stand for anyhow..."Go Go W"?    
 
 

Originally posted by Bagalicious Tangster:
 It's such a misnomer to talk about flat tax reductions.  That's not what happened, there's a labyrinth of tax reform and changes that disproportionatly benefit the extremely wealthy.
 
 And, Chaz made the key point.  If you reduce taxes, you have to reduce spending in areas that don't impact/cost those you just "gave" their taxes back to (thereby nullifying the tax cut), for instance on social and locality services (no, not welfare, but the administration of local government, local services, local law enforcement/fire/highway & transportation budgets, etc). [/QB]

[Celeste]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 Was it better tax-advantaged investment planning?

Joe and Mrs. Blow in middle America who are both working, and working extra jobs, just to pay the bills don't have time to research "tax-advantaged investment planning?"

[ggw]

Originally posted by chaz:
 Be more specific please....

The numbers you supplied don't show that the top 1% were ever paying 19%.  They were paying 25.9% and that is now 24.9%
 
 Also, this statement:
 

the federal tax payment made by the top 1% went down by 12.5% while the 73-97k groups payment went down by only 7%.

...is fuzzy math.  The dollar amount paid may have fallen by 12.5%, but that says nothing about how far the dollar base upon which those taxes were paid may have fallen.  Again, as a percentage of total federal tax, the fall was 1%, not 12.5%.
 
 

Originally posted by chaz:
 Any way, my origional point is this - 50% of the tax cuts put in place by bush have benefited the top 1% of taxpayers.  
 

Where are you coming up with this?
 
 

Originally posted by chaz:
 The top 1% of taxpayers foot 25% of the total tax bill.  How can you spin that to make me believe it is fair?

Do you mean that it is unfair that those that earn only 19% of the income pay 25% of the taxes?

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by Bagalicious Tangster:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 well, for example. . .  

It's such a misnomer to talk about flat tax reductions.  That's not what happened, there's a labyrinth of tax reform and changes that disproportionatly benefit the extremely wealthy.
 
 And, Chaz made the key point.  If you reduce taxes, you have to reduce spending in areas that don't impact/cost those you just "gave" their taxes back to (thereby nullifying the tax cut), for instance on social and locality services (no, not welfare, but the administration of local government, local services, local law enforcement/fire/highway & transportation budgets, etc).
 [/b]

what part of a for example was missed by y'all??  chaz argued that the rich don't pay enough in taxes, my point was that they pay alot in taxes, simply because they have more money that's taxed.
 
 i agree, cutting spending is a key part of cutting taxes, and one that i agree with - to a point.  having a balanced budget and bringing down the deficit is much more fiscally responsible, than cutting taxes. . .but cutting government spending is always a good option.

[ggw]

Let me add that I'm not saying that Chaz is 'wrong.'  The fact is, I don't know.  But neither does he.  There are a lot of factors at play here and saying that the top 1% pay less in taxes than they did three years ago solely because of Bush's tax cuts ignores all those other factors.
 
 And, while we are on the subject...has everyone noticed Kerry's tax plans?  They include a cut in the topline corporate tax rates as well a host of other corporate tax incentives.  These revenue losses will dwarf the increased taxes on those earning above $200k.

[markie]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 
   They include a cut in the topline corporate tax rates as well a host of other corporate tax incentives.  

But will this be offset by the closed loopholes for companies outsourcing labour?

[chaz]

OK...this one is driving me nuts.  I'm not an expert on tax law.  Christ.....every year I damn near have a fit filling out my 1040 ez and schedule a and itemized chartiable donation sheet etc etc.  I could pull numbers from here and there all day long that purportedly support my opinion that could just as easily be shot down by the differing opinion.  The fact of the matter is this - I'm of the belief that Bush's economic policies disproportionately benefit the weathiest of Americans.  I guess I just have to leave it at that...we could go back and forth all day with this.
 
 I'm pretty psyched for the election in Nov....it's bigger than any election any of us have probably ever lived through, in my opinion at least.  The country is also more divided than I ever remember it being.  Maybe I'm just older and more aware of things...I don't know...I just feel like this election is more important than just about anything I can ever remember.

[chaz]

GGW...you never answered my question...what does your username stand for, or is it just your initials?