Oh great, the Republicans want a FLAT TAX

[Lawrence of Arabia]

There is already an exemption that enitrely eliminates your incokme tax if you spam

i dont know, you tell me.

[AnnC]

Originally posted by Geronimo: I'm pissed that they never said anything about the fact that the taxes also meant that non earned income would be taxed at a lower rate than earned income. this is in fact the first time I've seen that mentioned.

Democrats made a big deal out of this, and discussed all the details. Especially Edwards, who harped on it endlessly. He specifically talked about investment income being taxed at a lower rate than earned income, and he used the guy-by-the-swimming-pool example to illustrate the point.

I get my news from PBS's News Hour and from major newspapers (which I read online) like Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and LA Times. So I knew about this issue a year ago.

Do you get your news from Fox? If so, that might explain why this issue is new to you.

[Geronimo]

I avoid FOX. I get my day to day news from a local newspaper and CNN (their website mostly but also some of their TV) and checking out links on Poly. 2003 was a busy year I may have missed the news when it was still new but I'm appalled that it wasn't clear in the election coverage which hardly ever addressed dividend income.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


i dont know, you tell me.

why did you ask...

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
and i wasnt aware that spammers paid taxes - can you show me that part? maybe i missed that too...

If you didn't have some reason to assume that spammers are excluded from income taxes?

I had just asked if you would support a tax break that you could only claim if you were a proven spammer and you responded by suggesting that you would be surprised to learn that spammers would be expected to pay income taxes. Why did you ask me to 'show that spammers pay taxes' if you didn't suspect they already enjoy some special excemption from paying taxes?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I had just asked if you would support a tax break that you could only claim if you were a proven spammer and you responded by suggesting that you would be surprised to learn that spammers would be expected to pay income taxes. Why did you ask me to 'show that spammers pay taxes' if you didn't suspect they already enjoy some special excemption from paying taxes?

ah, but you confused me. i thought you meant there was a special spammer tax, not a income tax on spammers. in which case i would support a cut in spammers income tax - the first step to lower or no taxes.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


ah, but you confused me. i thought you meant there was a special spammer tax, not a income tax on spammers. in which case i would support a cut in spammers income tax - the first step to lower or no taxes.

Even if they could only get the cut by being spammers? IE they would pay less taxes than non spammers? if so why? What will it accomplish? It will just make the deficit larger and make enacting fair tax cuts even harder than it was before. Tax cuts aren't all equally easy to enact. The farther the taxes get cut the harder it becomes to make additional tax cuts of any kind. If we want to reduce the tax load we need to insist that it be done correctly the whole way or it will just be harder if not impossible to get it done correctly later.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by AnnC


Democrats made a big deal out of this, and discussed all the details. Especially Edwards, who harped on it endlessly. He specifically talked about investment income being taxed at a lower rate than earned income, and he used the guy-by-the-swimming-pool example to illustrate the point.

I get my news from PBS's News Hour and from major newspapers (which I read online) like Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and LA Times. So I knew about this issue a year ago.

Do you get your news from Fox? If so, that might explain why this issue is new to you.

I should also point out that even Imran wasn't initially aware that people who only obtain income from dividends would pay less taxes than people earning income only through their salary, and Imran went as far as voting for Kerry. I still maintain that the Dems did a piss poor job of presenting this issue which would have easily fit into any of the zillions of campaign ads they aired here none one of which made mention of this.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Geronimo


This tax plan is such total bull****. The idea of making it possible for someone to be taxed less for earning income by not working than they would be taxed for earning the income through working is so wrong and so infuriating it would have had me campaigning hard against every congressman who voted for it and the president who signed it into law. I dislike tax brackets and 'progressive' taxation because it is unfair and therefore unjust. However if there is anything worse than 'progressive' taxation it is reverse progressive taxation.

It is truly a monstrous anti utilitarian and anti meritocracy policy if someone is rewarded for doing nothing and punished for earning income. This is badly badly Fvcked up. It bothers me almost as much that in all the crap I read published by those campaigning against Bush I don't remember anybody spelling out this awful policy.

The fight against inflation, started in the US in the 80s and extended successfully to the whole world, has resulted in building an economy devoted to paying interests to people doing nothing. Ever since actual interests have been consistently positive (around 2 to 3 percent), and the taxation of interests has traditionally been a flat rate. Before the 80s, the actual interest rates were generally negative, which induced people to invest in more productive areas. After 1980, the load represented by the actual interests on the economy rendered the expected profitability of new investment projects discouraging. The 15% yield demanded by shareholders cannot be granted on the long term. We are now in a situation where there is no better long term investment that the public debt with a 4.5% interest and a flat taxation rate.

Although this 1980 decision was backed up with very serious economical arguments, we are obliged to ask the usual question : were there some people having a special interest in a world with positive actual interest rate? The answer is yes, people with big cash balances the investment policy of whom would give the highest priority to security. Amongst those people I cant help but think that active and retired criminals are included.

The world economy deliberately organised to provide a no-risk lowly taxed return to criminals is a quite shocking idea, but it describes accurately the world as it is now.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

It will just make the deficit larger and make enacting fair tax cuts even harder than it was before.

deficts are not a function of inflow, its the result of too much outflow. by this logic, you are saying that rich people will not go bankrupt.

ax cuts aren't all equally easy to enact. The farther the taxes get cut the harder it becomes to make additional tax cuts of any kind

thats why you need leadership and/or a dictatorship.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
deficts are not a function of inflow, its the result of too much outflow.

So if your car runs out of gas, you would say it has nothing to do with not filling the tank?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

So if your car runs out of gas, you would say it has nothing to do with not filling the tank?

if your car runs out of gas, i would say that you used more gas than you had available. doesnt matter how full the tank is, if you go on a trip where you put more miles in than there are gallons of gas, then you will eventually run out, no matter how much you had in there originally.

[Space05us]

NRA for gun control?

NRA supports “gun control” that is designed to prohibit felons from buying and possessing firearms as long as those laws do not also infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. NRA supports enforcement efforts that target the violent law-breaker, and with that support programs such as Project Exile have been put in place in numerous cities and states.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/Default.aspx?Section=69

[Last Conformist]

What next? John Paul II in favour of abortions? Cheney in favour of 120% marginal corprorate taxes?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yeah, but the Prez is thinking about that most regressive of all taxes, a national sales tax, which would basically be a tax on people too poor to have internet access.

What of an exemption for necessities such as food and clothing, like most state sales taxes have? That's virtually all the poorest of the poor pay for, while the rich would pay extravagant sales taxes on big-screen TV's, yachts, etc. Doesn't sound very regressive to me.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by AnnC


That's a very good example - which illustrates the degree to which Bush's 2003 tax cut was a giveaway to the wealthy.

Teresa Heinz-Kerry doesn't work for wages, she derives all her income from stocks and bonds. Bush reduced the capital gains rate to 15% and applied it to stock dividends. So for example, if Teresa gets 5/6 of her income from dividends and 1/6 from tax-free municipal bonds then her tax rate nets out at 12.5%.

Before Bush's tax cuts, Teresa paid the top marginal rate of 39.6% on her dividend income. So as you can see, people who live off their investments now pay much lower taxes than people who earn wages/salaries - and that's the way Bush wants it.

I'd be interested in seeing just how much she actually paid in comparison to how much she would have paid if she didn't employ legions of tax attorneys and accountants to reduce her tax burden. A well-designed flat tax or even a national sales tax would be fairer than the current system and a lot cheaper for individuals and businesses to deal with.