9/11 Report

[RC]

If you buy into the theory of income polariztion trends in the US, then Bush's tax cuts are, by default, for the wealthy. Now the entire question is reduced to simple mathmatical ratios.

The wealthy pay more taxes because the wealthy make more money and they make more money at an increasing rate... Doesn't matter what your "bracket" is. If the top 1% make an increasingly larger proportion of total income in the US than everyone else, they WILL pay more taxes... If the wealthy pay more taxes, and there are, by comparison, more poor, the breaks were for the wealthy.

OK, I give up. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

[Shapley]

No, I get it.

My points are simply this:

1) We don't know if the trend is continuing or has been altered by President Bush's tax cuts, because we don't have data provided.

2) The argument is that "only the wealthy" benefitted from the tax cuts. Obviously, the wealthy will benefit at a higher value than the lower-income person will, but that does not mean that the lower income person did nor or does not benefit. If the wealthy receive a tax cut worth $200,000, and the low-paid worker receives a tax cut worth $200, does that mean the low-paid worker did not benefit? I say no.

V/R
Shapley

[haggis]

RC,
No offense, but I pretty much discount anything the "Citizen for Tax Justice" cranks out. It is generally regarded as being pretty far left of the spectrum.

It's pronouncements and charts are frequently misleading and almost always skewed to represent any tax legislation they don’t approve of as tax breaks for the “wealthy.”

An example would be the earlier statement to one of the charts you referenced:

” quote:

"Despite misleading presidential rhetoric, almost half of all American taxpayers will get less than $100 this year and next from President Bush’s just-passed tax plan. In 2005, three quarters of taxpayers will get less than $100, and in 2006 and later years almost nine out of ten will get less than $100.

That’s correct. It’s also disinformation. 5% of American taxpayers pay 54% of all tax revenues. Half of American taxpayers pay only 4% of taxes, how could they get much more back unless we give them more than they paid?

To be fair, I pretty much avoid any of the information put out by any of the “501 (C) 4”s regardless of their leaning.

I try to use only references and numbers that I can confirm through the IRS and BLS and other U.S. Govt. figures. If they are wrong (and they sometimes are) they confine their comparison to other government derived numbers.

If I can’t find any official numbers I will research the non-governmental ones (almost always “501 (C) 4”s and sometime the more politically oriented “527”s) before I use them in a post and caveat them as well as I can if they are apparently left or right leaning.

I’m still not sure what your laboriously arrived at point is beyond the fact that if you don’t pay taxes you can’t expect a tax cut to help you very much.

It remains my opinion that a reduction of the FUTA (which even now is in surplus of billions) will help the poor; I don’t really know what I can say beyond that point.

I personally have no opinion about the pros or cons about corporate “welfare”

So as to your question, Yes the tax cuts were for the wealthy, i.e. those who pay taxes.

[RC]

degenerating to shouting is a reflection of my frustration to present what I thought was a relatively simple and non-political theory regarding the implication of a recent tax break.
I really am sorry I jumped down your throat, it wasn't deserved.

I actually chose that article/graph because it gives data from 1979 to 1997. 18 years gives a pretty good "trend". There were others that give the same results with more current data but less succinctly.

Who was in office during the trend is irrelevant to the argument anyway which sort of illustrates why I'm so frustrated. The trend itself is NOT the point, the point is how the trend reflects on the tax breaks.

[Shapley]

RC:

No problem. I had the speakers turned down on the computer, so if you were shouting, I didn't hear it.


V/R
Shapley

PS: RE<<The trend itself is NOT the point, the point is how the trend reflects on the tax breaks.>>

Oops! I would have thought the point was whether or not the tax breaks affected the trend.

<small>[ 08-05-2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[RC]

Haggis


posted 08-05-2004 05:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RC,
No offense, but I pretty much discount anything the "Citizen for Tax Justice" cranks out. It is generally regarded as being pretty far left of the spectrum

It would be highly irregular for me to quote Citizens for Tax Justice but just in case, I just scrolled through all 4 pages in this thread...I don't see what you're talking about.

Early on, I linked to an article from CNNMoney to propose the theory and stated it as such.

I DID quote the Department of Labor

And, I used a study from the Center on Budget and Poliy Priorities.

The Center was founded in 1981 to analyze federal budget priorities, with particular emphasis on the impact of various budget choices on low-income Americans. Our work has broadened considerably since then as we have responded to new developments and entered many new areas of research.

As far as your FUTA, entirely different subject from my "laboriously arrived at point".
So if you have those two issues intertwined I can see how you wandered off topic again.

[BigJon]

Oy! A whole lot of rhetoric based on bad interpretation of data. C for TJ, I'm looking at you.

Just to keep it simple. Flat taxes suck for those at the bottom of the payer scale. Regressive taxes are just that, self-defeating, this includes sales, value and value added taxes. The fairest tax is a graduated tax on income that never becomes con·fis·ca·to·ry at its top level. The graduations should be in small steps or stepless, just a sloping line.

The fallacy of polarization is that it is the same folks in the same percentiles at the different time periods. Ain't necessarily so.

BigJon

P.S. Nicole Marie, have you aquired a ghost writer? Your reponses in this thread have been showing a full measure of understanding of the other side.

[haggis]

BigJon:

Right on!

Nicole's off on some cruise or vacation, I hear

[RC]

Healthy capitalistic economy, (sans welfare), the peoples income would be accuratley represented by a bell curve. High in the middle, low on either end.

The leading portion of the curve is small, representing the few poor. The large middle sections would represent MOST participants (the middle class), the trailing end would represent the few wealthy.

In our case, without individual welfare, and tarrifs/subsidies, our curve would be flattening if not inverting. The middle section would be spreading to either end creating the perception of "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer"; a polarization of wealth, as the middle class is depleted.

web page

Economic globalization.
We began exporting manufacturing jobs a long time ago in two ways: 1. purchasing cheaper imports, and 2. literally exporting the labor to compete with cheaper imports. These jobs were done by the middle class who now either get more education and try to move up, or take a lower paying job. They are shifting to the ends of the curve.

In addition, we've seen accelerated immigration of the poor from our southern border to do manual labor jobs (farm work, and the lower processing jobs) because they're cheaper than even the poor of US citizens. The people who used to have these jobs are not likely to go to college to move into the upper class AND there is now a LOT of competition from the middle class who want to remain there.
An added implication is, these immigrants are residents and inflate the lower end of the curve regardless of their citizenship.

On top of that, we are beginning to see an influx of sophisticated labor exporting. High tech computers, aircraft engineering & design etc... This is more competition for the upper middle class.

Competition is good. Cheaper imports mean ALL citizens can afford more stuff. BUT, over time the curve flattens for OUR economy as it becomes more bell shaped for the global economy.

If we did NOT have individual and corporate (subsidies/tariffs) welfare, redistribution of wealth via taxation, we would not enjoy the standard of living we have now - we would not be able to maintain the middle class.

Relative to the global economy, we are still in great shape. HOWEVER, in the 1970's our economy was much more isolated and our standard of living relative to the global economy, was MUCH better.

This is not a product of current politics. It is an inevitability. We can either revert to isolationism (economy), or wait for the rest of the world to catch up. In the meantime, we will see more and more monetary and economic manipulation. When we do it successfully, people are happy. When we are unsuccessfull, you see a couple of things happen: 1. increased crime rate and/or the need for more crime prevention, more gated communities, 2. extreme polarization of political views. "Liberals" vs. "Conservatives", "Democrats" vs "republicans" as everyone thinks they have the right answer to what is perceived as a threatening situation.

What does this have to do with Bush's tax break?
Bush's tax breaks were income tax breaks.
If the curve is flattening, there are more people who pay no taxes due to low income, and more people who are wealthy, than there are folks in the middle (relative to say, the 1950's - 1970's).
So who benefits most from the break? Well, if you don't pay taxes at all you don't benefit at all. If you are wealthy, you pay the lions share of taxes and benefit the most. If you are in the middle, you get a check for $100.00.

When someone says the breaks were mostly for the wealthy, that isn't necessarily a political statement.

If that is true, then what was the purpose of the tax breaks? Either you subscribe to the "Trickle Down Effect", or you're looking for votes... mostly from people who weild power - the wealthy.

You may disagree with the theory of income polarization (many do), but to mistake an economic theory as a political rant or "moping" or even rhetoric makes no sense at all.

OK, I've about beat the hell out of this horse just to try to make you think it through instead of painting everything you hear with a knee jerk political brush.
I hereby vow not to speak to the topic of Income Polarization on this thread ever again.

<small>[ 08-06-2004, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>

[RC]

Haggis,

does this look familiar?:

GC,

one of the articles you link shouted out:

"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Despite misleading presidential rhetoric, almost half of all American taxpayers will get less than $100 this year and next from President Bush’s just-passed tax plan. In 2005, three quarters of taxpayers will get less than $100, and in 2006 and later years almost nine out of ten will get less than $100.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s correct. It’s also disinformation. 5% of American taxpayers pay 54% of all tax revenues. Half of American taxpayers pay only 4% of taxes, how could they get much more back unless we give them more than they paid?

Note that you were responding to GC, short for Great Carouser . Not RC , short for nothing.

Great Carouser and I have similar positions on occassion and I value his/her posts which is not to say we are like minded.

"Oops" is quite sufficient...

<small>[ 08-06-2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>

[Serenity]

"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the Income Tax." -- Albert Einstein

[haggis]

"oops"

I thought

"OK, I've about beat the hell out of this horse just to try to make you think it through instead of painting everything you hear with a knee jerk political brush.
I hereby vow not to speak to the topic of Income Polarization on this thread ever again."

I know I'm tired of it as well!

<small>[ 08-07-2004, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Haggis ]</small>

[RC]

apology accepted.

[BigJon]

Originally posted by BigJon:
Just to keep it simple. Flat taxes suck for those at the bottom of the payer scale. Regressive taxes are just that, self-defeating, this includes sales, value and value added taxes. The fairest tax is a graduated tax on income that never becomes con·fis·ca·to·ry at its top level. The graduations should be in small steps or stepless, just a sloping line.

I forgot to add, usage fees should reflect actual usage to be fair.

BigJon

[Shapley]

BigJon,

Here in the Midwest, the governments, in their wisdom, have begun to impose "user fees" on goods purchased in other states. They are "user fees" because it is unconstitutional to impose tariffs, which, of course, they are. High tax states state, such as Illinois, don't want their subjects, er...citizens, buying goods in lower tax states and bringing them home, thus the "user fees" are imposed to keep us in line. The courts have upheld them, as long as they are called "user fees" and not taxes or tariffs.

They have increased taxes on cigarettes to the point that they have to search cars coming from Kentucky to prevent "bootlegging".
"Bootlegging" having been redefined to mean purchasing more than a couple cartons per trip.

V/R
Shapley

[The Great Carouser]

Credit http://www.zeppscommentaries.com


Poker With Dick Cheney

Transcript of The Editors' regular Saturday-night poker game with Dick Cheney, 6/19/04. Start tape at 12:32 AM.


The Editors: We'll take three cards.

Dick Cheney: Give me one.

Sounds of cards being placed down, dealt, retrieved, and rearranged in hand. Non-committal noises, puffing of cigars.

TE: Fifty bucks.

DC: I'm in. Show 'em.

TE: Two pair, sevens and fives.

DC: Not good enough.

TE: What do you have?

DC: Better than that, that's for sure. Pay up.

TE: Can you show us your cards?

DC: Sure. One of them's a six.

TE: You need to show all your cards. That's the way the game is played.

Colin Powell: Ladies and gentlemen. We have accumulated overwhelming evidence that Mr. Cheney's poker hand is far, far better than two pair.

Note this satellite photo, taken three minutes ago when The Editors went to get more chips. In it we clearly see the back sides of five playing cards, arranged in a poker hand. Defector reports have assured us that Mr. Cheney's hand was already well advanced at this stage.

Later, Mr. Cheney drew only one card. Why only one card? Would a man without a strong hand choose only one card? We are absolutely convinced that Mr. Cheney has at least a full house.

Tim Russert: Wow. Colin Powell really hit a homerun for the Administration right there. A very powerful performance. My dad played a lot of poker in World War 2, and he taught me many things about life. Read my book.

TE: He's extremely good at Power Point. But we would like to see the cards, or else we can't really be sure he has anything to beat two pair. We don't think he would lie to us, but ... well, it is a very rich pot.

Jonah Goldberg: Liberal critics of Mr. Cheney's poker hand contend that "he doesn't have anything". Oh, really, liberal critics? Cheney has already showed them the six of clubs, and yet these liberals persist in saying he has "nothing". Why do liberals consider the six of clubs to be "nothing"? Is it because the six of clubs is black?

Matt Drudge: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****

*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****

The Drudge Report has learned that Dick Cheney has a royal flush, hearts. Developing ...

TE: Perhaps if you could just show us a subset of your cards which beat 2 pair? Or tell us exactly what your hand is?

DC: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed.

TE: We aren't sure ...

DC: Very good. And here are my cards. A straight flush.

Judith Miller: Dick Cheney has revealed a straight flush, confirming his pre-collection claims about beating two pair.

TE: Those cards are of different suits. It's not a flush.

Mark Steyn: When will it end? Now liberal critics complain that Dick Cheney's cards are not all the same suit. Naturally, these are the same liberals who are always whining about a lack of diversity in higher education. It seems like segregation is OK with these liberals, as long as it damages Republicans.

MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****

*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****

A witness has come forward claiming that The Editors engage in racial profiling in blog-linking. Developing ...

TE: Wait! It's not even a straight! You've got a eight and ten of hearts, a six of clubs, and the seven and five of diamonds. You have a ten high. That's nothing.

Sean Hannity: Well, well, well. In another sign of liberal desperation, liberals now complain that a ten high is "nothing". Does ten equal zero in liberal mathematics? That would explain a lot.

Robert Novak: It's a perfectly valid poker hand Apparently, liberals have never heard of a "skip straight". It's a kind of straight, just with one card missing. But if you skip around the missing nine, it's a straight.

Alan Colmes: Mother says I mustn't play poker.

TE: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".

Brit Hume: It seems like some people are still playing poker like it's September 10th. Back then, you needed to have all your cards in order to claim a straight.

But, as we learned on that day, sometimes you won't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes you have to learn to connect the dots, and see the patterns which are not visible to superficial analysis of the type favored by the CIA and the State Department.

Dick Cheney's skip straight is a winning poker hand for the post-9/11 world.

Rush Limbaugh: Do The Editors have two pairs, or a pair of twos? Firstthey say one thing, then another. What are they hiding?

Andrew Sullivan: Dick Cheney never said he had a straight. He was very careful about this. His cards can form many different hands. None of these hands alone can beat a pair of twos; but, taken together, the combination of all possible hands presents a more compelling case for taking the pot than simply screaming "Pair of twos! Pair of twos!" as unprincipled liberal critics of the Vice President so often do.

MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****

*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****

Did The Editors claim to have "a pair of Jews"? Are they anti-Semites as well as racists? Developing ..

Zell Miller: As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I believe Dick Cheney, and I hate liberals and Democrats.

William Safire: Why are liberals so obsessed by Dick Cheney's poker hand? The pot has been taken, the deal is done. If liberals are upset that we are no longer playing by the Marquis of Queensbury patty-cake poker rules, they clearly lack the stomach to play poker in the post-September 11th environment. And why do they never complain about Saddam Hussein's poker playing, which was a thousand times worse?

Christopher Hitchens: The Left won't be happy untilthe pot is divided up equally between Yassar Arafat, Osama bin Laden, and Hitler. Orwell would have seen this.

Ann Coulter: Why do liberals object so strenuously to the idea of conservatives having a "straight"? Perhaps because it doesn't fit in with the radical homosexual/ Islamist agenda they hold so dear?

Report of the Bipartisan Commission on Poker Hands:There is no such thing as a "skip straight".

DC: I have access to poker rules that the Commission doesn't, and so I know for a fact that the cards in my hand are all intimately connected.

George W. Bush: Dick Cheney is telling the truth. I'm a nice man who would drink a beer with you.

Vladimir Putin: I dealt Dick Cheney three aces and two kings.

DC: My deal.

[RC]

LOL
That really is cute.

Liberal or conservative or libertarian, thats cute.

[Marye]

A scream!!!

[RC]

George W Bush: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful - and so are we,They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we."

[RC]

I'm looking for a "Kerryism" equally amusing...stand by.