Opinion Poll About President Bush

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

No it is not. If you understand what socialism is, government control of everything, no personal responsibility, etc. you can not deny that those at the top of the Democrat machine (and their biggest contributors) are socialist. Many of them do not even deny it. To be fair, many Republicans are not much better.

Like all too many people, you seem to be confusing communism, Marxism, and socialism. And the two main US political parties, which are nothing like any of those three.

This does not even make sense. The figures are what they are. “What ifs” have no basis in the reality of the situation and therefore are meaningless.

It shows that your - on the face of it emotive - figure is also meaningless. People who earn more pay more tax is hardly a drastic statement.

You are right about that. The only “fair” (and simplest) way to tax is to tax everyone at the same rate, period.

Err, no. Progressive taxation is not at all the same thing as a flat tax. We had a long debate on this quite recently.

Not in my experience. I personally know people from the top of the scale to the bottom and the amount (and percentage) that the top people pay is frightening.

Frightening? It’s 35% over $319,000. If I was earning $319,000 a year, 35% of what I earned above that in tax would hardly be a great burden.

Those at the bottom pay little or nothing.

From the last 1040 I filled in (2003) it was about $8000 for a single person before they started to pay tax. I don’t think all that many people earn less than that - and if they do, they surely can’t afford to be paying any tax.

The one advantage that the top earners do have is the ability to hire professionals to figure out the jungle that is our tax code and make use of every deduction and loophole. And there you have a further argument for a flat rate.

Only for people who can’t do some simple calculations. I agree the loopholes and deductions need to be simplified but there is no need for a flat rate to do it.

Proponents of the flat rate seem to say ‘simple - let’s take the 4 or 5 bands, make it into 1, and leave everything else the same.’ How does that help?

Have you ever read Title 26 (the Tax Code)? There is not a more deceptive, confusing mass of legalistic garbage in existance.

Cripes, no, I don’t suffer from insomnia thanks

Again, simplifying would be a very good thing. A flat tax would result in the poor paying more, for the benefit of the rich. I can’t condone that.

Mike

 

[2shelbys]

Like all too many people, you seem to be confusing communism, Marxism, and socialism.

I am confusing the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics with socialism? The main thrust of socialism is government control of everything. That is exactly what the Democrats stand for.

People who earn more pay more tax is hardly a drastic statement.

Exactly my point. You said they pay less.

Progressive taxation is not at all the same thing as a flat tax. We had a long debate on this quite recently.

I must have taken your statement wrongly. I thought you were being sarcastic. I know they are not the same. A “progressive” tax system that punishes success and effort is inherently unfair and un-American. You do remember that “each according to his means” is a founding principle of Communism. Taxing everyone at the same rate is by definition the only “fair” method.

Frightening? It’s 35% over $319,000. If I was earning $319,000 a year, 35% of what I earned above that in tax would hardly be a great burden.

When the people at the other end of the scale pay more than 10% less, yes it is frightening. Our entire economy is built on the concept of opportunity for those who want to take advantage of it. Why should anyone try to succeed if the more successful they are the more they are punished?

From the last 1040 I filled in (2003) it was about $8000 for a single person before they started to pay tax. I don’t think all that many people earn less than that - and if they do, they surely can’t afford to be paying any tax.

Maybe, but at the rates being talked about for a flat tax they would still be paying less than they are now. No matter what the system, making anyone at or below the poverty level pay taxes is a crime.

Only for people who can’t do some simple calculations. I agree the loopholes and deductions need to be simplified but there is no need for a flat rate to do it.

I can tell by this statement that you haven’t read the tax code! One of the major newspapers (I can not remember which one) submitted identical documents to 70 different tax professionals to have the taxes calculated. Guess how many different answers they received back. 70!!! There is nothing simple about the calculations and it is intentional.

Again, simplifying would be a very good thing. A flat tax would result in the poor paying more, for the benefit of the rich. I can’t condone that.

I have never been able to understand this line of thinking. What the poor pay has no benefit to or effect on the rich, and what the rich pay has no effect on the poor. What one person pays is not determined by what anyone else pays. The only effect of over-taxing the rich is feeding into the class envy that the Democrats love to exacerbate.

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

I am confusing the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics with socialism? The main thrust of socialism is government control of everything. That is exactly what the Democrats stand for.

The USSR was communist, whatever they called themselves. The UK government from 1945-51 was socialist. (You do know the UK Labour party declares itself as a ‘socialist’ party, right? It says so on the back of my membership card).

The Democrats right now are only socialist compared to the Republicans and the libertarians. They are far far away from being socialist.

Exactly my point. You said they pay less.

Well, actually that was someone else.

I must have taken your statement wrongly. I thought you were being sarcastic.

To be fair, being British, I often am being sarcastic. Not in this case though

I know they are not the same. A “progressive” tax system that punishes success and effort is inherently unfair and un-American. You do remember that “each according to his means” is a founding principle of Communism. Taxing everyone at the same rate is by definition the only “fair” method.

Adam Smith would disagree.

For that matter, ‘each according to his means’ sounds very like the early Catholic communities described in Acts.

When the people at the other end of the scale pay more than 10% less, yes it is frightening.

That is a strange concept of ‘frightening’, imo.

Our entire economy is built on the concept of opportunity for those who want to take advantage of it. Why should anyone try to succeed if the more successful they are the more they are punished?

Paying tax is a punishment? Isn’t it the case that the more you earn, the more you take home after tax is paid?

Maybe, but at the rates being talked about for a flat tax they would still be paying less than they are now. No matter what the system, making anyone at or below the poverty level pay taxes is a crime.

To the latter point, I agree. They can’t be paying less though. The government says it wants to raise X from tax. Now if rich people are paying less of the X, by definition the poor will be paying more of the X.

Now, the other argument is that X should be a smaller figure in the first place - but that is a different argument and doesn’t need a flat tax.

I can tell by this statement that you haven’t read the tax code!

I’ve read enough of it to do my own 1040s in the past, but I was reasonably simple.

My argument is that just having 4 or 5 bands of taxation is hardly more complicated than having one. All the other things, the allowances, deductions etc. complicate things massively - but that again is nothing to do with a flat tax.

One of the major newspapers (I can not remember which one) submitted identical documents to 70 different tax professionals to have the taxes calculated. Guess how many different answers they received back. 70!!! There is nothing simple about the calculations and it is intentional.

I can believe it - but when you get down to line 40-odd of your 1040, you have left a simple figure from which to deduce what income tax you need to pay. That calculation is only marginally more difficult with 4 bands than it is with one.

I have never been able to understand this line of thinking. What the poor pay has no benefit to or effect on the rich, and what the rich pay has no effect on the poor. What one person pays is not determined by what anyone else pays.

How you can think that is beyond me. The government want to raise a certain amount. If the rich pay less, the poor will have to pay more, and vice versa.

Mike

 

[2shelbys]

The Democrats right now are only socialist compared to the Republicans and the libertarians. They are far far away from being socialist.

Right now that may correct but all that means is that they are far from where they are headed.

Well, actually that was someone else

Ok, sorry about that.

For that matter, ‘each according to his means’ sounds very like the early Catholic communities described in Acts

True, but unfortunately you can not run a national economy in the same manner as you hope to run your personal life.

Paying tax is a punishment? Isn’t it the case that the more you earn, the more you take home after tax is paid?

It is definitey a punishment when you first reach that next level and end up bringing home less money in spite of earning more which is something that happened to me.

To the latter point, I agree. They can’t be paying less though. The government says it wants to raise X from tax. Now if rich people are paying less of the X, by definition the poor will be paying more of the X.

Not necessarily. That is a common misconception in the U.S. Less income tax collected does not mean less revenue to the government. In every instance where taxes have been cut the resulting stimulation of the economy produced greater revenue overall through other consumption-related taxes.

My argument is that just having 4 or 5 bands of taxation is hardly more complicated than having one. All the other things, the allowances, deductions etc. complicate things massively - but that again is nothing to do with a flat tax.

But it is not that simple. Not all income is taxable. Income from different sources is taxed at different rates. Those rates can change as the taxable amount changes, and on and on and on.
If you just say add up all of your income no matter the source and send us 17% that is simple and fair. And another advantage would be the massive revenue savings that would result from major slashing of the I.R.S. budget and personnel. I know that increases unemployment, but only temporarily.

How you can think that is beyond me. The government want to raise a certain amount. If the rich pay less, the poor will have to pay more, and vice versa.

See above…

By the way, we are getting off topic here. This thread was once about the President was it not? Don’t you hate when that happens!!

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

Right now that may correct but all that means is that they are far from where they are headed.

Well, we can say that about anything. That just seems to reflect what you want to think about them to me. ‘Well, their secret agenda is…’

Ok, sorry about that.

No problem

True, but unfortunately you can not run a national economy in the same manner as you hope to run your personal life.

It was a throwaway reference really, rather tangential to the whole discussion.

It is definitey a punishment when you first reach that next level and end up bringing home less money in spite of earning more which is something that happened to me.

One would think you were getting more but a smaller % of the your total income in your pocket. If you were really earning more and taking less home then you had an incompetent accountant

Not necessarily. That is a common misconception in the U.S. Less income tax collected does not mean less revenue to the government. In every instance where taxes have been cut the resulting stimulation of the economy produced greater revenue overall through other consumption-related taxes.

I think the Laffer curve theory is highly debateable, at best. Even if you do agree with the Laffer curve, there is some optimal point on the curve beyond which cutting tax further would be counter-productive.

But it is not that simple. Not all income is taxable. Income from different sources is taxed at different rates. Those rates can change as the taxable amount changes, and on and on and on.

I’d say the poor are unaffected, as their income is simply in their wage packet. The rich can afford an accountant to sort out the twenty different income sources they have

I’m being a bit tongue-in-cheek of course. I do think the tax code per se needs to be highly simplified, but I do believe that a progressive tax system is by far the most fair.

I think we’re off-topic anyway. This really isn’t much to do with an opinion of President Bush anymore

Mike

 

[Cesaria]

I fully support President Bush and I always have.

 

[2shelbys]

Well this has been fun but we are off topic, I will say one more thing though…

Well, we can say that about anything. That just seems to reflect what you want to think about them to me. ‘Well, their secret agenda is…’

Their agenda is no secret. They only hide it (or lie about it) during campaigns.

Take care Mike.

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petergee "Hmm, let’s see…“Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your consolation.”“I tell you most solemnly, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.”(To the rich young man) "Sell all that you own, and give the money to the poor.“Seems that after the Pharisees, Jesus was more anti-rich than anti- anyone else.”

Oh come on…He was talking about people who put money before God. Money is not the root of all evil…love of money is. Don’t take scripture out of context.

Sorry mate, the only one taking scripture out of context is you with your misquote. Jesus didn’t say “the bad rich”, just “the rich”. In fact the “rich young man” is described as one who kept all the Commandments.

Quote:
“…the richest Americans paid extremely low taxes even before Bush’s further generosity to them at the expense of the poor, sick and disadvantaged”

Wow, I did not think anyone still believed this propaganda. Stop listening to the politicians (especially the socialist Democrats) and check out the various Taxpayer watch groups for yourself. The richest 10% of the people in this country pay over 80% of the tax burden. All you have to do is look at the tax code to see that the more you make the higher the percentage you pay.

Nice, really nice. You delete the first half of my sentence, “Compared to those in other first world countries,” and misrepresent the second half. My statement is a fact. Nothing to do with propaganda, look for yourself at the tax rates of other first world countries and compare them to the US. Tax-wise the US is by far the best place in the firstworld to be a millionaire.

This notion that the rich pay nothing and the poor and middle class pay everything is nonsense.

Of course it is, so why do you bring it up, except perhaps to falsely accuse me of stating it?

countries like England and Austrailia where gun bans have resulted in massive increases in crimes committed with guns. … The simple fact is that automatic weapons are FAR cheaper and easier to get illegally in ANY country than they are to get from an American gun store.”

“ And you accuse ME of believing propaganda?? This is utterly absurd and totally false. The rate of gun deaths in the US is many times that in any other first world country. The rates in the UK and Australia have fallen sharply since each country introduced SOME restrictions on guns. Facts, my gullible friend.

 

[2shelbys]

Nice, really nice. You delete the first half of my sentence, “Compared to those in other first world countries,” and misrepresent the second half. My statement is a fact. Nothing to do with propaganda, look for yourself at the tax rates of other first world countries and compare them to the US. Tax-wise the US is by far the best place in the firstworld to be a millionaire.

I left out the first part because it is meaningless. Who cares what other countries pay? Do you actually believe that we should throw 50-60% of our hard-earned money to the government just because others are foolish enough to do so. This discussion is about President Bush so the only comparison that is relevent is our situation before and after his administration took over. What is done in other countries that are drowning in socialism-related problems is of no importance. The USA is the best place for ANYONE to live.

The rate of gun deaths in the US is many times that in any other first world country.

Misleading. If you subtract from the total number of gun-related deaths the number that are criminals who are shot by police, other criminals, or by the innocent people they had hoped to victimize you find that the USA is one of the safest places on earth to live. One area where we do lead the world by a huge margin is in crimes foiled by citizens with firearms. A DOJ study from 1995-2000 found that an average of just over 1.4 MILLION crimes are foiled by citizens with guns in the US every year.

The rates in the UK and Australia have fallen sharply since each country introduced SOME restrictions on guns. Facts, my gullible friend.

Not facts, fantasy my gullible friend. Here are some facts:

Since Australia’s 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, kidnappings by 43%, murders by 3%, and manslaughter rose by 16%.The armed robbery rate in Queensland rose by more than 200%.

After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. “The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic,” said Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. “Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.”

According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its gun ban in 1997.

In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.“You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States,” stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. “The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America’s.” The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, “the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed dramatically since England’s ban was put in place.” And none of the deaths in England were of criminals shot by intended victims. The majority of deaths in the US were of criminals.The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.

I could go on and on. The simple fact that has been proven over and over every time it is tried is that GUN CONTROL KILLS INNOCENT PEOPLE. It kills because laws only affect those who obey laws. Criminals love gun control because it gives them a much better chance of being the only one armed when they attack someone. Simple logic. If you support gun control you are part of the crime problem. Period.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Thread closed

Reasons:

charity
off topic