Millionaires.... good news!

[Bugzii]

Summertime.. an' the livin' is easy
Fish are jumpin' an' the cotton is high
O yo' daddy's rich and yo' ma is good-lookin'
So baby, don't ya cry...

quote:

---

Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, CBO Says - Reports

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

The calculations, requested by congressional Democrats, confirm the long-held view by independent tax analysts that the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, have heavily favored the wealthiest taxpayers, the Times said.

Bush has said the cuts provided crucial support to the U.S. economy after the Sept. 11 attacks and the three-year decline in U.S. stocks.

But Kerry, who wants to roll back the cuts for households whose incomes top $200,000 per year, has said the cuts did little for the economy, and helped cause the federal budget to swing from a more than $100 billion surplus in 2001 to a projected deficit exceeding $400 billion this year.

The newspapers, citing the CBO report, said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740.

People in the lowest 20 percent of earnings, which averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to 5.2 percent from 6.7 percent, though their average tax cut was only $250.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

---

source: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5966749

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

I would imagine they included payroll taxes which are heavily regressive.

Like most numbers they can be played with to say what you want them to say. No doubt with capital gains cuts, the rich got a better deal. The tax cuts should be tweaked.

 

[javacontour]

Let me get this straight.

One percent of all Americans are paying 20% of the taxes, and you think they should pay more?

Sorry, I don't begrudge anyone them making their millions and do think it is sad when we think it's ok to tax someone at a higher rate just because they make more.

I'm all for a temporary helping hand to someone who is down on his or her luck, but this class envy has to go, it's not healthy for anyone.

Flat tax for everyone, meaning we each pay the same number of dollars, not percentage every year.

This flat tax would be for the core set of federal services, defense, foreign policy and defense of the constitution. Figure up how much that costs and give every adult from 21 to 70 their even share of that bill.

Everything else like the FAA would be paid by those passengers and cargo carriers that use it. Ditto for DOT, etc.

But everyone, and I mean everyone pays for the core set of federal services.

TB

 

[Pitbull]

What do you guys thing about the proposed national retail tax. Where they get rid of all other taxes and you just pay taxes on what you consume?

 

[javacontour]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pitbull:
What do you guys thing about the proposed national retail tax. Where they get rid of all other taxes and you just pay taxes on what you consume?

---

My fear about that is out economy is so heavily slanted towards consuming. It is fueled by people living beyond their means, (spelled credit for nearly everything.)

A tax on consumption may throw that into a tailspin for a while as it make take a while for those who approve credit to react to the new prices and income formulas.

And of course it can't happen immediately because each state will probably still keep an income tax for a while.

I just don't see it happening here.

TB

 

[keith]

This year there might be more capital losses than gains. The numbers fluctuate every year. Those numbers pretty much only reflect a good 2003 in the stock market. Progressivity, when a large component is based on capital gains, adds a lot of volatility to the tax collections from the "rich". You will see a totally different set of numbers for the current year.

"Kerry ... has said the cuts did little for the economy". Considering where the economy was heading since the summer/fall of 2000, plus 9/11, that is a bizarre statement.

Besides, it's all OUR money. I would rather see MORE tax cuts, spending cuts, and Social Security to get really fixed. Spending can go up when you are fighting a global war, but the rest of the budget is also going up. Not smart.

It would be interesting to hear of suggestions to address the regressivity of FICA. Flat tax is one idea. I don't believe that scrapping the 87K ceiling is a good idea, because FICA is already the same as throwing your money out the window. (more specifically, out of your window and into Congress, to be spent long before you draw on the money that is no longer there). Giving Congress more of our money is not the answer! They will simply spend it and write bigger IOU's.

Keith.

 

[Pablo]

Typical biased article.

I don't have time address all the points, but it's more of selective ommision and inuendo than anything.

1) Did they mention the $80,000 - $X00,000 group? This group pays over 50% of the income taxes (in dollars collected)

2) They sorta barely mention the lowest level tax payers got a HUGE percentage cut in the actual percent of income due....(6.7 down to 5.2)...but then say well it's "only $250"....well ***, did they expect $1,000,000?????????????

Stupid slanted lazy reporter logic

 

[MolaKule]

excerpts from


http://www.hillsdale.edu/newimprimis/default.htm

quote:

---

It all comes down to this basic premise: If you lose your economic freedom, you lose your political freedom and, in fact, all freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be passed on genetically. It is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it. Once freedom is gone, it is gone for a long, long time. Already, too many of us, particularly those in business and industry, have chosen to switch rather than fight.
We should take inventory and see how many things we can do ourselves that we have come to believe only a government can do.

The most dangerous myth is that business can be made to pay a larger share of taxes, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us. Business doesn't pay taxes, and who better than business could make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business. Passing along their tax costs is the only way businesses can make a profit and stay in operation.


The federal government has used its taxing power to redistribute earnings to achieve a variety of social reforms. Politicians love those indirect business taxes, because it hides the cost of government. During the New Deal days, an undersecretary of the treasury wrote a book in which he said that taxes can serve a higher purpose than just raising revenue. He said they could be an instrument of social and economic control to redistribute wealth and income and to penalize industries and economic groups. We need to put an end to that kind of thinking.

---

quote:

---

Moral Foundations of the Free Market

The reason for tax cuts is not to allow the rich to keep their money. It is to enable entrepreneurs to invest money by making their investments profitable. Through the investment process, entrepreneurs give money to others, in their own or other businesses. By earning the money, they learned how to identify the people best able to increase its worth. They learned how to use the money in ways that respond to the needs of their customers. They mastered the magic of lowering prices in order to increase revenues. And they reached out to the largest untapped markets of the world economy, which are always the domains of billions of currently poor people struggling to gain wealth.
As Reagan understood, high tax rates do not stop someone from being rich: Those who are already rich can move their money to protected havens. High tax rates stop poor people from getting rich. They stop entrepreneurs from supplying new goods and services that generate more wealth and jobs and value and tax revenue. In truth, defending tax cuts as a way to keep more of one's money is the opposite of the case. Tax cuts are good because they allow us to give our money to others in an ever-expanding spiral of economic opportunity. In the end, the rich can keep only what they give away - that is, what they entrust to others in the ever-spreading process of investment and growth.
These rules of giving and trust are no less important today, as the U.S. becomes an information economy. American entrepreneurs are, as we all are, not without sin. But their every decision has met an empirical test beyond appeal - a marketplace crucible beyond their control. Thus they are the world's true realists and most proven pragmatists. All of them know deeply that to reach the top, they first have to get to the bottom of things. To lead, they first have to listen. To save themselves, they must serve others and solve others' problems.


"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Give and you will be given unto" are the central rules of the life of enterprise. Because you cannot give what you do not own, enterprise requires the rights of property. Because successful entrepreneurs often defy the conventional wisdom, the life of enterprise requires personal freedom. Because entrepreneurs have to serve and collaborate with others, they must be men and women of character and faith. Character enables an entrepreneur to commit his work and wealth over a period of years to bring into the world a new good that the world may well reject. Character is essential to the act of putting one's fate into the hands of unknown others in a market of voluntary choice.


Bullheaded, defiant, tenacious and creative, America's entrepreneurs continue to vindicate the faith of Ronald Reagan and the teaching of Hillsdale College. They continue to solve the problems of the world faster than the world can create them. Confronting the perennial perils of human life and the often overwhelming odds against human triumph, the entrepreneur finds strength in a deep faith and demontrates that genuine charity is not to be found in government largesse. The entrepreneur's success is a triumph of the American character.


Today is a heyday for entrepreneurs. As Reagan's policies have taken hold, the proportion of new jobs created through self-employment and proprietorships has risen from five percent in the 1980s to nine percent in the 1990s, and to 31 percent today. President Bush's low tax rates on capital gains and dividends have unleashed a new surge of entrepreneurship.

---

 

[Al]

Same old DmocRatic drivvel aimed at the uneducated, unsuccessful, "woe is me", masses. Horrors-the "Rich" are getting to actually "keep" some of the money that they earned

 

[carrera79]

Exactly. Let them all go live in a commune somewhere else. I don't give a **** .

 

[dropitby]

The real reason the super rich don't want to see a depression is they may have to change their lifestyle.Not to mention the price of everything will come down. No one wants a depression and I don't think one will happen but It would be worth it to me to see some of them squirm.Problem is as always the ones doing any real work will suffer the most. The CEO if he loses 1 millon at the tables in Vegas they just raise prices a little. Trust me I've been next to a few. So if you don't know how things work in the real world don't take shelter behind big brother he will pay for looking the other way some day.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dropitby:
The real reason the super rich don't want to see a depression is they may have to change their lifestyle.Not to mention the price of everything will come down. No one wants a depression and I don't think one will happen but It would be worth it to me to see some of them squirm.

---

Yea..these "Evil Rich" people again that pay 90% of the taxes and many times employ folks.

Tiresome

 

[Drew99GT]

[/QUOTE]Yea..these "Evil Rich" people again that pay 90% of the taxes and many times employ folks.

Tiresome

[/QUOTE]

Yea, employ them at income levels that have been steadily going down (in inflation adjusted dollars) for that last 20 years, while CEOs and business owners incomes have skyrocketed.

 

[dropitby]

Let me refrase that statement the rich heartless incompassionate bast@#$ that becomes that way by their greed that they feel their position gives them. Because some people who win the lottery never lose their values.

 

[jsharp]

Someone want to point me to real figures that show us the budget 2001 surplus mentioned in this opinion piece? It sounds like the Clinton budget surplus we heard so much about. Fiction.

As far as I'm concerned, Reuters = Pravda.

 

[dropitby]

You know Politics and $ go hand in hand. Like who desides how much a CEO should make and get as a severence pay, charge for your wife's birthday party.Until cooking the books and lieing undermining the integirty of their office and company stops nothing will change.GW Bush called Ken Lay Kenny Boy now the respect at the top is sickening. This slap on the wrist with Elliot Spitser has been very short lived I am sure.He is on TV as I write this and said all of you who invested in mutual funds were getting ripped off BIG TIME. Tell me that what goes on on wall street and in Washington isn't known to be criminal to many at the top well how can you work for a company that is swindling you out of your 401K $ and he gives himself a 35% raise while their laying people off and won't deal with the union for a 3% increase in WORKER pay. Look at GRASSO I can't talk any more I may ruffel your feathers if you look up to the Ken Lays of the world.

 

[javacontour]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dropitby:
You know Politics and $ go hand in hand. Like who desides how much a CEO should make and get as a severence pay, charge for your wife's birthday party.Until cooking the books and lieing undermining the integirty of their office and company stops nothing will change.GW Bush called Ken Lay Kenny Boy now the respect at the top is sickening. This slap on the wrist with Elliot Spitser has been very short lived I am sure.He is on TV as I write this and said all of you who invested in mutual funds were getting ripped off BIG TIME. Tell me that what goes on on wall street and in Washington isn't known to be criminal to many at the top well how can you work for a company that is swindling you out of your 401K $ and he gives himself a 35% raise while their laying people off and won't deal with the union for a 3% increase in WORKER pay. Look at GRASSO I can't talk any more I may ruffel your feathers if you look up to the Ken Lays of the world.

---

I agree that there are some shady dealings at Enron, no question.

However, you do have to put SOME (not all) of this on the employees as well.

Why?

Because Enron stock was not the only thing they could invest in.

If I understand correctly, the only thing Enron employees were required to take in Enron stock was matching funds. There were other investment options for their 401k.

So employees didn't need to lose it all, only the matching funds.

This by no means excuses the executive leadership at Enron for their misdeeds, but instead points out that everyone needs to be careful.

I know, this doesn't make those who "lost it all" feel any better, but it is not right to put ALL the blame 100% on the executives either. The employees who chose to put all their eggs in one basket bear SOME responsiblity for their situation as well.

TB

 

[Shannow]

My concern isn't the people who "earn" a million a year, it's the obscenely rich who pay zero taxes that get on my goat.

Oz' richest pay nothing.

Kerry Packer is happy to lose $250,000 a go at the casino (and get it written up in his newspapers to show what a great guy he is), can buy a kidney transplant, and open heart surgery in the U.S., but fails to earn the $6,000 required to meet the tax free threshold.

He pays nothing.

My 84 year old Grandmother is "deemed" to earn 8% on her assets for pension and taxation purposes, even though 5.5% is about the highest that a bank will give.

That's plain wrong.

 

[gfcrane]

I suppose we could go the way of Canada. Five years ago the sales tax was 16% in Ontario, 10% federal and 6% provicial as I remember. Of course there was also an income tax which was at a higher rate than ours. Health care was "free", if you could get it before you either died or got well on your own. I personally know that a $20US bill received prompt attention by a doctor.

I think a sales tax on virtually everything would be a better method of taxation to the present system, which is a result of tinkering for special "groups" both up and down. The great danger would be to end up with both sales and income taxes, like Canada. It would seem to be almost inevitable this will happen, given the seeming desire to totally redistribute income.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by javacontour:

Originally posted by dropitby:
[qb] to put SOME (not all) of this on the employees as well.

Why?

Because Enron stock was not the only thing they could invest in.

If I understand correctly, the only thing Enron employees were required to take in Enron stock was matching funds. There were other investment options for their 401k.

So employees didn't need to lose it all, only the matching funds.

---

I agree 100%. Yes it is very sad. But these folks made bad financial decisions. Dare I say greed??