Tax Cuts in Action?

[Mojlnir]

Okay, apparently this is the Bush tax cut in action. Look closely at the reported incomes for Bush and Chenney and then at the percentage of tax that was paid. Chenney made more money and paid a lower percentage of tax...seem odd to anyone?

 

Is this how Bush claims to stimulate the economy? By taxing rich people less? Sounds like a crock to me. By the way, how many people here actually got money back from Bushie's master plan?

 

CNN article on Bush's taxes

 

I think this is symptomatic of the kind of "helpful" policies that the current administration is trying to get through. Oh, and by the way, the privatization of health care will help seniors too. :sick:

[m_gobes]

I know my parents got about $1000 more than they used to get back that's 50% more than they were getting before for their tax return. So I don't see problems w/it.... my science teacher said that he got less than before. I know he isn't married and doesn't have any kids so that may be a factor in this.

[vandorssen]

The idea of cutting taxes for the rich is the "trickle down" theory. But it leaves the average income makers at the mercy of the rich. This year, I paid less in taxes, but I got less back. The way I figured, it turned out to be about the same as during the "Clinton" years, less our state's "Jessie" checks.

[Akrid]

If you start a cult you don't have to pay any taxes, I'm thinking about that.

 

I really don't like the trickle down idea, I want fair tax's not relief trickled to me by some rich dude.

[Guest]

We should have a consumption tax. For those who do not know what that is, let me lay it down for you. With a consumption tax, there is no income tax, but sales tax will increase to around 18-20% or so. This may sound like a lot, but if you think about it it's a lot better than any of the other tax plans. It's more fair, doesn't hurt the poor anywhere near as much as a flat tax, and NO INCOME TAX. Just let those last three words roll around in your head for a minute.

 

NO.

INCOME.

TAX.

 

If you do the math, you get a lot more "bang for your buck", if you will.

[Akrid]

OMG dude I was the last to post here last year, you necroed big time.

[draighox]

Is this how Bush claims to stimulate the economy? By taxing rich people less? Sounds like a crock to me. By the way, how many people here actually got money back from Bushie's master plan?

Taxes should the same for all people, it shouldn't depend on the amount of money the people got.

 

We should have a consumption tax. For those who do not know what that is, let me lay it down for you. With a consumption tax, there is no income tax, but sales tax will increase to around 18-20% or so. This may sound like a lot, but if you think about it it's a lot better than any of the other tax plans. It's more fair, doesn't hurt the poor anywhere near as much as a flat tax, and NO INCOME TAX. Just let those last three words roll around in your head for a minute.

I agree. NO INCOME TAX.

[Dark0ne]

OMG dude I was the last to post here last year, you necroed big time.

 

Hi Akrid,

His post isn't considered necromancy since he actually added to the conversation; which is fine. So long as he makes a valid and original point that hasn't already been expressed it doesn't matter when the post was written.

 

Hope that clears up our take on necromancy.

 

D

[ThetaOrionis01]

We should have a consumption tax.  For those who do not know what that is, let me lay it down for you.  With a consumption tax, there is no income tax, but sales tax will increase to around 18-20% or so.  This may sound like a lot, but if you think about it it's a lot better than any of the other tax plans.  It's more fair, doesn't hurt the poor anywhere near as much as a flat tax, and NO INCOME TAX.  Just let those last three words roll around in your head for a minute.

 

NO.

INCOME.

TAX.

 

If you do the math, you get a lot more "bang for your buck", if you will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Unless you exempt basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter from that, you're simply redistributing wealth - take it from the poor and give it to the rich. People on lower incomes spend a much larger proportion of their income on those basic necessities than those with cash to spare - and they can least afford such a tax.

 

If you tax education and medical care like that too, then again it will mean that people on lower incomes can no longer afford it - and is having a large, poorly educated populace really something a state should aim for?

 

There is, in case you're not aware of this, already a tax on consumption - we call it VAT in the UK, and it currently stands at 17.5%. Food, children's clothes and books are some of items which are exempt from this tax. Given that the UK still requires an income tax on top of that, I think your figure is far too low.

 

Now, if you wanted to tax SUVs at about 4000%, and quadruple the tax on petrol, that I would support.

[draighox]

Unless you exempt basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter from that, you're simply redistributing wealth - take it from the poor and give it to the rich.

I don't get it. Take it from the poor and give it to the rich? How?

 

People on lower incomes spend a much larger proportion of their income on those basic necessities than those with cash to spare - and they can least afford such a tax.

Are you trying to say that we should take money from the rich and give it to the poor?