Thank god for tax cuts

[arclight]

Foxnews story
Financial times
Bureau of Labor and Statistics

The economy is doing well. One of the few domestic issues Bush has done well with is taxes. He understands the premise that lower taxes = stronger economy= more revenue. It's a shame he sells out to special intrests almost as often as John Kerry. But, as a politician, you have to admit he is pretty slick, stealing all of the issues Kerry has to runon, leaving him questionable Vietnam service! I find that quite amusing. Does anyone out there have a logical and non-communist (that stuff will NEVER work, we are humans, don't forget) why Bush should not have lowered taxes? I figure we'll see the "it helps the rich guys" whining, but that is easily explained as either ignorance or envy, situation depending. Anyway, just thought I'd see if there are any reasons why taxes should be returned to their previous levels as per the Kerry agenda. I sincerely do not think so.

[PatrickHenry]

Raising expenditures while lowering revenues is a recipe for financial disaster. Do you operate your business or family finances that way? Are there "special" rules that make it feasible for the US government to do so for years on end? Wouldn't it be a good idea for the national budget revolve around a balance point, sometimes in the red, sometimes in surplus? Debt service requires taxing someone.
http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/debt.htm

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT = $23,270 PER PERSON, and rising <snip> This means a family of four (4) shares more than $93,080 in federal debt responsibility - - including those still in diapers. <snip> During the 2 years since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack, federal government debt increased $975 billion - - some might say, "But isn't more debt OK to fight the 'war on terror'?" My response: did they reduce non-defense spending to fund our protection, since the major reason our founders formed a federal government was for national security? Answer: Nope!! They increased non-defense spending, too.

My view: debt service taxes are funding our enemies.

[Gorgo]

http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2004/Shif...TaxCuts_pr.html

Bush Tax Cuts = Tax Shifts
New UFE Report: Tax Burden Shifting off Wealthy onto Everyone Else

BOSTON — A new report, entitled “Shifty Tax Cuts: How They Move the Tax Burden off the Rich and onto Everyone Else,” from United for a Fair Economy (UFE) indicates that between 2002 and 2004, the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% of US income earners redirected billions of dollars in revenue that could have eliminated virtually all of the budget shortfalls in the states.

“Congress had the option to send aid to the states to prevent $200 billion worth of service cuts and regressive tax increases,” said Chris Hartman, UFE’s research director. “Instead, they gave tax breaks totaling roughly the same amount to multi-millionaires and the rest of the top 1%.”

The report identifies five main areas of shifting tax burden:

FEDERAL TO STATE — a 15% shift in tax burden between 2000 and 2003

PROGRESSIVE TO REGRESSIVE — at the federal level, a 17% decline in the share of revenue from progressive taxes and a 135% increase in the share of revenue from regressive taxes since 1962

WEALTH TO WORK — A tax cut on unearned income — such as inheritance or investment — of between 31% and 79%, but a tax hike on work income of 25% since 1980

CORPORATIONS TO INDIVIDUALS — a 67% drop in the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations and a 17% rise in individuals’ share

CURRENT TAXPAYERS TO FUTURE GENERATIONS — record deficits that shift the tax burden to our children and grandchildren

[arclight]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, My view: debt service taxes are funding our enemies.

And the enemy also lies within. True, very true indeed. I was doing a little experiment, to see if I could write like the new york times. Its hard to ignore the record spending, very hard, almost like making a case that there are no WMDs in Iraq when we are finding them all the time. Rediculous. The spending is out of control. That is the other half of the equation, absolutely.
Of course I would not spend what little money I have like that, but there are millions of people who do, as you pointed out. Goes back to government education, and the need to seperate the two, for good.

[PatrickHenry]

Here's a URL for the debt outstanding against the USGov: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

And here: http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/debt.htm

TO WHOM DO WE OWE THE DEBT? How about a lot to foreign interests? The left chart shows foreign parties control nearly 40% ($1.5 trillion) of all our Treasury bonds and t-bills. This means each man, woman and child owes $5,208 in federal debt to foreign interests. A family of 4 owes more than $20,832 in this regard - - 36% of the total is owed to Japanese. Note the rapidly rising trend since 1992, as share of foreign holdings doubled. In 2002 OPEC and Europe reduced share; concern for future value of the US dollar. Who was the idiot that said about debt, "We owe it to ourselves, so its no big deal if debt goes up." This chart proves Americans owe a huge amount to foreign interests - - and that's a very serious 'deal." <snip> Foreign interests now own more and more of America - - According to the above chart, they own about 40% of federal government treasury bonds. Foreigners own about "$8 trillion of U.S. financial assets, including 13% of all stocks and 24% of corporate bonds", according to Bridgewater Associates. . The major provider of money for home mortgages is Fannie Mae - - guess where they get that money > > answer: they borrow about a third from outside the U.S., according to Bloomberg Sept. 2002. Additionally, foreign interests own real estate and factories.

My reasoning behind the statement that debt service is funding "enemies"...

I also regard the Federal Reserve System of "fiat" money and that slurping sound of tax dollars siphoning to service USGov debt to the banking cartel as "enemies" to the republic, friends to the Imperium.

[PatrickHenry]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr13.html
or truthout: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/041405H.shtml

The House voted 272 to 162 yesterday to permanently repeal the estate tax, throwing the issue to the Senate where negotiations have begun on a deep and permanent estate tax cut that can pass this year, even if it falls short of full repeal. The House vote pitted repeal proponents, who held that a tax on inheritances is fundamentally unfair, against Democrats, who questioned how Congress could support a tax cut largely for the affluent that would cost $290 billion over 10 years, in the face of record budget deficits. "This is reverse Robin Hood," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "We're taking money from the middle class and giving it to the super-rich." <snip> the Republican starting position would set the value of an estate excluded from taxation at $10 million, with a 15 percent tax rate for estates larger than that. The value of estates sold by their heirs would be calculated based on their worth at the time of their owner's death, rather than current law, which sets the gain in value of an estate at the cost of the estate's assets when they were first purchased. "If the United States Senate came up with $10 million-per-person exemption and a 15 percent rate similar to capital gains, almost everybody in the small-biz community would be thrilled with that," said David K. Rehr, president of the National Beer Wholesalers Association. But the cost of that would likely be almost as high as a full repeal, since virtually no estates would remain subject to tax.

Is removing all estate taxation wise in an era of budget deficits? And is it a worthy long term goal to allow heirs to receive their inheritance without extractions by the Feds?

[bishop]

Quote by: arclight Of course I would not spend what little money I have like that, but there are millions of people who do, as you pointed out. Goes back to government education, and the need to seperate the two, for good.

seems like the spending doesn't really mean all that much to you - as you failed to mention it in your first post, as you praised bush's cuts. like most of bush's followers, the deficit truly is an afterthought. responsible people would look at taxes and expenditures as two sides of the same coin.. cutting taxes should result in cutting expenditures, but we've seen some of the biggest spending increases in history. only lbj liked to spend more than our big-government president.

i think at this point, bush's presidency has seen the addition of $2 trillion in new national debt. that's quite an accomplishment. but, thank god for the tax cuts, eh? have you ever seen a projection of what today's deficits will do to us in the future? i have, and it reminds me of charts i've seen for medicare and social security - they're scary.


fyi.. the affect of the tax cuts pales in comparison to the fed's rate cuts. you think that boom in the housing market happened because of tax cuts?? or the boom in the market in 2001-2002? nope, those two happened because of the rate cuts.

[Ali]

have another question.can anybody answer it.

a "subsidy" is a financial support given by the govt.now my question is that
"can subsidy be paid out of taxes"

waiting for ur kind replies.

[Sonart]

From today's paper ...

--"NEW YORK – Wall Street suffered its worst single day in nearly two years yesterday, extending a recent slump that has come amid fears that economic growth is slowing.

All three indexes set five-month lows for the second straight session, prompted by disappointing earnings in the tech sector and questions about slowing economic growth.

Worries that the economy is softening flared up this week after reports showed an unexpected surge in the nation's trade deficit with the rest of the world and weak monthly retail sales."--


.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Ali have another question.can anybody answer it. a "subsidy" is a financial support given by the govt.now my question is that "can subsidy be paid out of taxes" waiting for ur kind replies.

Off topic. Start a new thread...

[caspian88]

Bush's tax cuts = good thing.

Bush's deficit spending = bad thing.

There.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: arclight Foxnews story Financial times Bureau of Labor and Statistics The economy is doing well. One of the few domestic issues Bush has done well with is taxes. He understands the premise that lower taxes = stronger economy= more revenue. It's a shame he sells out to special intrests almost as often as John Kerry. But, as a politician, you have to admit he is pretty slick, stealing all of the issues Kerry has to runon, leaving him questionable Vietnam service! I find that quite amusing. Does anyone out there have a logical and non-communist (that stuff will NEVER work, we are humans, don't forget) why Bush should not have lowered taxes? I figure we'll see the "it helps the rich guys" whining, but that is easily explained as either ignorance or envy, situation depending. Anyway, just thought I'd see if there are any reasons why taxes should be returned to their previous levels as per the Kerry agenda. I sincerely do not think so.

Those tax cuts really have seemed to turn the economy around and helped.

[Savant]

Is it really a tax cut if He spends more? Isn't it more like Bush bought our votes by simply enabling us to guiltlessly take money from our own kids.

You know.. if our kids ever really understand what we've done to them... they'd be right to take away our social security to pay of the deficit we dropped on them.... *gasp*

[RVonse]

The only junk mail I find in my mailbox anymore is either credit card applications or home mortgage refinancing advertising. Used to see many other business ads but that is no longer the case anymore. I am more likely to believe what I see come to my mailbox than what our media tells me the economy is. And it doesn't look to good to me.

In my short lifetime, I have seen the U.S. enconomy go from manufacturing, to service, and now credit financing. Since you can only borrow so much money, I am left to wonder which industry we can expect to follow our re-financing credit economy?

[oranged]

Quote by: arclight non-communist (that stuff will NEVER work, we are humans, don't forget)

I'm honestly starting to think I'm not human, because I have shown that I can destribute money evenly among everyone. Is that so hard? That no human could ever do it properly! My explanation is communist, people on government funded salaries need money, they need sustanance. Don't go saying Bush is on a government salary, because most of his money is aquired in other ways. Some of which build a legacy of greed to rival Genghis Kahn, and are completely illegal.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: oranged I'm honestly starting to think I'm not human, because I have shown that I can destribute money evenly among everyone. Is that so hard?

Thou Shall NOT Covet Thy Neighbor's Goods!

Communism is not normal or ethical. At it's best, it could only hope to bring everyone down to the level of the poorest people.

If a wage earner works twice as hard and then gets taxed a ton of his salary away, then he will not look to work real hard again.

True communism starves because it punishes success. It's also murdered millions of their own people to maintain power.

Capitalism works. I can see some taxes to handle roads, military and some other things, but I do think the rates are high.
Under President Reagan, he lowered the top rate to the Federal government to 28%. People got so excited about keeping their own money that the rate reduction greatly increased revenues to the treasury. The only problem was the politicians spent $3 for every new dollar raised.

Money earned is YOUR money, when you are taxed, they are taking YOUR money away from YOU. I believe YOU can spend YOUR money better than the government.

In society, if you take the wage earners money away and redistribute wealth, in a generation you will have no one willing to work very hard. Hard work and earning would have been punished into extinction and you at best would be a glorified third world nation IMO.

[belverron]

Thou Shall NOT Covet Thy Neighbor's Goods!

Proponents of the theory are probably more likely to be giving to their neighbor than receiving.

[GodBlessAmerica]

All people should and may be charitable, but to take another's things or wage earnings to redistribute wealth is too close to communism for me and leads to a lack of desire to earn money in the long run.

[Autolykos]

I am sorry to be a bubble-burster, but things are definitely not going well.

Over the past 5 years or so, we have once again seen the Federal Reserve and the United States government prevent the economy from liquidating the malinvestments created by artificially low interest rates. Unfortunately, most people seem either unable or unwilling to see this, even though it's right in front of their face.

Wherever there's a central bank, there is a bubble economy. It's always just a question of how big the bubble is at any given time.

- Rob

[SteveA]

As much as I love lowered taxes, the value of it is in resources not being taken from the public. If spending doesn't decrease along with tax cuts, then it means little because those resources are still bought/controlled by government and we pay for it in higher prices/inflation/loss of value of savings.

I'd almost prefer they keep taxes high if their going to spend that much anyway, because at least that way people can see where their money is going.