[labgrade]

Seen/heard some - not enough = been busy - but, enough on radio/TeeWee that the Dems seem to be gulping like guppies out of water.

Your take?

[Destructo6]

They're spouting the same, tired, line about cutting taxes to benefit the rich only.

Other than to create class conflict, I don't know why there's a sliding scale and not a flat tax.

[Seeker]

Less Taxes is good, I believe.

$675 Billion is quite a price tag and I can't help but wonder where this money is coming from... Wouldn't it be better to let peole and business keep the money they earn rather than being ever-so-gracious as to give it back to them?

I heard Michael Savage jabbering away on the radio while driving home from work today and he was going on about how this was a tax cut for everyone across the board, when a lady called in and said that it wouldn't do anything for her as a single person making $10 hr. Savage (who claims to be 100% right on all topics) consulted some charts and tables and said that she would in fact save $500 a year - then he corrected himself and said that since she didn't have any dividend income that she was right she would'nt see a dime of the tax cuts. So while the Republicrats claim it is an across-the-board- cut, it isn't.

The Demicans aren't doing any better with their plan of $300 for each tax payer. hmmmm.... Whay does that sound so familiar? Isn't that the plane Bush implemeted just after he was elected that the Demicans screamed so loudly about, that didn't actually save the economy?

Less taxes is good, but I am not sure that I am seeing the real picture what with all the smoke and mirrors and all - maybe I got some of that "Voodoo Ecomonics", GHWB talked so much about years ago, obstructin' the view.

[labgrade]

Seeker,

Heard Savage this evening. The Lady didn't get a cut, assuming The Plan goes through (legislation to be decided = LTBD from now on, ;) ) & that they had a clue for something proposed = so much dust in the wind right now, no?

Bush does have a way with things so much that too many take him as some bumbling country-boy. No endorsement certainly, merely an observation. With a "repub-owned" guvmint, I could see somethings possitive & I could also see some things possitively abhorent.

Time will tell, no? & being "democratically elected" in this "democracy," what else is there but to ride it out & make noise regards what we think of their decisions .....

& Destructo6, just for sake or arguement, isn't/hasn't our current sliding tax scale already created a "class conflict?" Why should "I" (perhaps), making $1/4 million/yr be taxed at any different rate than (perhaps you) at ~$10,000/yr?

"I" would already (also) be taxed at a much higher rate due to my (already higher) purchases (sales taxes, luxury taxes, etc.) - & besides, if I had a business, the OSHA, FICA, etc. taxes that I'd pay for owning a business ..... please elaborate.

A decent enough question, just to consider why we're where we are is why do we have the current tax scaling.

It's a very honest question.

In any event, very enlightening to watch the (more) tax 'n spends (as if!) gulp it up.

Appears The Dems on the ropes at this juncture.

No matter the outcome (I'd hope for a just parody), funny to watch (any of) 'em gulp dust .... ;)

[tyme]

I bet a flat tax would be called unfair by the democrats. Last night some Democrat flunkies were on c-span with "charts" showing how Bush's plan would give a ~$25k/yr household less than ~$100 back, while giving a $1m/yr household over ~$20k back. I forget the exact figures, but you can imagine what a two-datapoint $100 vs $25k barchart looks like.

Flat taxes wouldn't help. The Dems would come up with more barcharts showing continued disparity, and they wouldn't be happy until the rich could only keep their first 100 or 200 thousand dollars (with arcane exceptions only the Congresspeople know about so they can avoid losing all their additional income). I don't know what percentage the flat tax would have to be to generate tax revenue equal to the current system's, but say it's 30%. The rich (those with average tax payments of >30%) get a tax break, and the poor get a tax increase. Certainly that isn't fair to the working class single mother who has a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and needs to save money to send her kids to college. And can you imagine Democratic backlash over a bar chart that shows rich getting money back and poor having to pay more money?

The Senate passed something that extends unemployment another 13 weeks for those layed off in something like the half of the States with the worst unemplyment rates, and apparently they have assurances that it'll pass the House. At least that's how I understood it; the text of the bill hasn't been released, and Daschle and his minions were complaining about how unfair it was that some people (presumably the Democratic Senators' States have smaller unemployment rates so the legislation doesn't apply to them or something) were being excluded. This 13 week (I think - it's billed as 5-month) extension is on top of the initial 26 week unemployment period provided for and on top of a 13-week extension passed last year.

Bush wants a $3k/person unemployment account over something like 3 months that people can use for just about anything. If they find employment before 3 months is up, they get to keep the rest of the money. I'm not sure if that's part of the plan the Senate just passed, or whether it's separate.

There are a bunch of items from last year's tax cut that phase in gradually, and Republicans want those phased in now. Stuff like additional $400 tax credit per child (it was $500, it's $600 now going to $1000 over the next few years).

I think Bush wants to get rid of the marriage penalty too, making married tax bracket cutoffs exactly double the single-adult tax bracket cutoffs.

And of course there's the dividend tax that Bush wants to get rid of, and the Dems hate that idea. Some Democratic Senators on the B&F committee were on c-span whining about how it'll encourage investment in dividents rather than infrastructure bonds, implying that the government will collapse.

And the $750 or $800 or $900 billion package (nobody on c-spam seems to be able to keep numbers straight) is over the next 10 years.

There's also the matter of the Federal Budget. 11 of 13 bills necessary to keep the government running weren't passed last Session, and Bush wants them all passed by the State of the Union. The current funding extension expires this Saturday. How nice to see that the government can't be bothered to provide funding more than 3 days ahead of time.

2003 appropriations bills (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app03.html)

[Khornet]

about tax cuts:

1. Talking about how much they will 'cost' is ridiculous. It's all OUR money in the first place, and it 'costs' us when Uncle Sugar takes it from us. When he doesn't, we're just being ripped off less.

2. Interest and dividend income is twice taxed: you pay tax on your earnings, and if you invest some of what's left and that yields interest or dividend, that's taxed again. That's wrong and unjust.

3. To benefit from a tax cut you must be a taxpayer. To benefit a lot, you must pay a lot of taxes. It's only fair that those who pay most benefit from cuts. If you socialists want a 'progressive' tax system, you'll have to accept that it will be progresssive in both directions.

4. Democrats would object to putting out a fire if it benefited a rich person.

[JPM70535]

It's a no brainer that the more you earn, the more taxes you pay in one form or the other. It's also an equal no brainer that a tax cut across the board is going to yield a larger cash return ( not percentage) to an individual who pays tax on a million dollars than an individual who makes ten thousand dollars. Seems prefectly fair to me.

I would personally like to see a flat tax replace the graduated one now in use. Since God only wants ten percent, that seems like a fair rate. Of course the same liberal ninnies who owe their political careers to the lower socie-economic groups would raise a hue and cry of monumental proportions. They will rave on about the tax breaks being weighted in favor of the top ten percent, with nothing for the middle class.

These same Ploitical hacks propose tax cuts supposedly aimed at the middle class, which sounds great until the bottom line reveals that to them middle class stops at Forty thousand a year. Above that and you automatically join the ranks of the wealthy.

Bush's tax proposals, while not ideal from a true middle class. under 100 thousand per year, do offer some relief in the form of Dividend exclusions. Other than that , the child credit may have a limited benefit for only those with minor children, and the marriage penalty removal will offer some overdue relief. Other than this, the "middle class" will take it on the chin as always and shoulder the majority of the tax burden.

The rich, AFAIK pay far more in taxes (all taxes) than any other group, and I find no fault with their being given tax relief. With the exception of those born to wealth ala Kennedys, the rich worked for their financial success, and should not be villified for having the fortitude to work their way to independence.

[whoami]

This is something I just don't get. This is supposed to be in part, if I understand correctly, a method to stimulate our economy. The Demo's are pissed, because the poor don't get back as much as the rich do, which for them I understand is standard. But to stimulate the economy, one would need an increase in transactions and revenue, which on one side would I assume require an increase in spending. Who, then, would be more likely to produce a higher rate of spending with this newly returned wealth, as well as higher tax revenues on such spending.....someone making $25k a year or someone making $2.5mil a year?

[tyme]

whoami, not only that, but the top quintile of household incomes generates sixty-something percent of federal taxdollars. The top quintile starts at something like 80k/yr. How on earth could a tax-cut-based stimulus package give the economy a "shot in the arm" (not a "shot in the foot" Daschle, you moron), without significantly dropping tax rates for those paying 60%+ of federal taxes?

[ahenry]

Isn't that the plane Bush implemeted just after he was elected that the Demicans screamed so loudly about, that didn't actually save the economy? Have you looked at the economy lately? I mean the real economy, the underlying foundational parts (i.e. not the stock market). Don’t be so blinded by your hate of Bush that you can’t see positives where they exist.

Aside from that, what is wrong with a tax cut that only benefits a portion of the population (only rich, only poor, only <insert favorite group>)? Obviously if I am not part of the group that stands to benefit the most, I might prefer something that will impact me more directly, but come on people! A tax cut is a tax cut is a tax cut! We need ALL the tax cuts we can get.

Personally I would love nothing more than massive tax cuts that puts the gov’t in a financial bind. We have a better chance to cut waste under Bush, than we have had in many, many years. In fact considering the political climate and such the possibility of trimming some fat is better now than its been in probably 50 years.

Somebody hit me, I'm dreaming again...

[El Tejon]

Why should those who do not pay income taxes "get" anything? If the Democrats want to help, they can start by getting out of the way of the Productive Class. When are they going to realise that the more the Productive Class produces, the more there is to go around for the Taxeaters that they represent? Heck, the Taxeaters may even get jobs and become productive.

The income tax cut proposal is more of a moral argument than an economic boost (would be a boost if cuts took place immediately). The prohibition of the double taxation of dividends will be a huge boost! Hooray, capitalism.:)

[Kaylee]

From what I've seen so far, Bush's is pretty good. I'm not too partial to the unemployment account/credit thing he's tacked in there, but I do understand it as a realpolitik thing to get the socialists to go along with him, and his approach is prolly the last damaging of the alternatives.

The income tax rate rollbacks are long needed, and a Good Thing. Actually, we need a lot more, but at least it's movement in the right direction for a change.

Ending the dividend tax I think is unintentionally ingenious, and it stands a chance of preventing some major future harm in people's 401(k)s down the line, IF coupled with a couple other changes to the tax code. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. Honestly though, if I was sincerely interested in tinkering with the economy to prevent a collapse, I'd scurry to do this, with the proviso that the stock offering the dividends --

1 -- be a new stock issue from the company in question, floated after passage of the act.

2 -- that the stock be held at least one year prior to the dividend disbursement in order to be tax exempt.

Taken together, this will flow a lot more NEW capital into companies for infrastructure and people, and it will prevent short-term speculation in the stocks, which is what is driving a lot of the current market madness.


I do see where they're coming from on the bond issue, though, given that Municipal infrastructure bonds are also tax exempt, to "encourage" you to loan more money to the local gov'ts by not taxing you as much as they do on your private investments. In other words, the taxmongers don't want competition in the no-tax arena.



As to the whole "tax cuts only for the evil rich" song and dance... I'm coming to the conclusion that anyone to the right of Marx is gonna get that from 'em anyway, so we might as well go all the way, and take heat for a GOOD reason, instead of taking heat for compromising ourselves out of hearth and home.

-K

[ReadyontheRight]

Democrats would object to putting out a fire if it benefited a rich person.

Actually, a lot of Democrats are rich themselves. Many seem to want to make it harder for the rest of us to get there.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/articles/08-05-02/coulter.htm

I think democrats would also object to putting out a fire if they were in favor of fire control. If there's no fire, why would we need them?

[ReadyontheRight]

Sorry for the double post, but this story applies to the thread's question.

How Tax Cuts Work

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

So, the next time you hear that they benefit the rich remember this little story:

Tax Cuts?

I was having lunch with one of my favorite friends last week - a very liberal college professor - and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts.

"I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the Professor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair."

"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason they'd get more money back."

I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument.

So I said to him, "Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand:"

"Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100."

"If it was paid the way we pay our taxes,

The first four men paid nothing;
The fifth paid $1;
The sixth paid $3;
The seventh $7;
The eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) paid $59."
"The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve."

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.""

Now, dinner for the 10 only costs $80.

The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divide up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share?

The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so now:


Along with the first four, the fifth man paid nothing,
The sixth pitched in $2,
The seventh paid $5,
The eighth paid $9,
The ninth paid $12,
Leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.

Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up.

The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys, girls and college professors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. $ $ $

----

Courtesy of Steve Odem

[cuchulainn]

1. Talking about how much they will 'cost' is ridiculous. It's all OUR money in the first place, and it 'costs' us when Uncle Sugar takes it from us. When he doesn't, we're just being ripped off less.

Hear hear. The same with how much the plan "gives" us. Or how much we "get."

"Give" = goverment does not take
"Cost" = government doesn't take
"Get" = you're allowed to keep

Did you hear the one about the mugger who "gave" his victim $20 out of the $100 he was planning to steal? That "cost" was quite a sacrifice for the mugger. "Getting" it was quite beneficial for the victim, and he was eternally grateful to the mugger.

[crawfordew]

It seems to me that the Democrats profess to love the capitalist system, but they hate capitalists.

Gene;)

[Soap]

ahenry- I agree with your sentiment and I will agree that Bush is doing good with his plan.

El Tejon & Kaylee- Well said.

It seems to me that Democratic Party has an aversion to anything resembling simple economic logic.

[longeyes]

If you want to stimulate the economy, and have that effect last, you need to stimulate savings and investment. That means rewarding savers and investors; that means rewarding--gasp!--deferred gratification. In a nation that is more and more dependent on consumer spending, and on debt, that is, unfortunately, an unwelcome message. The American consumer has become an addict as surely as governments and corporations have become addicts--I'm talking about debt addiction, of course.

As for tax cuts, the more the better. Double taxation of dividends shouldn't even have to be debated. I'd like to see capital gains taxes eliminated, inheritance taxes, and taxes on interest income. If Bush wanted the maximum vote return, cutting taxes on interest income would be the place to strike.

[longeyes]

Given that the Federal Government will spend upwards of $20 trillion over the next ten years, $675 billion isn't that big, especially in a total economy that will generate $100 trillion in that span (at today's level). Everyone but the Democrats understands that we need to cut Federal spending. I firmly believe that the liberals are either utterly innocent of economic knowledge or downright disingenuous. The last thing the Dems want is a large body of citizens who are not dependent on Government "largesse" (aka your own money, in someone else's hands).

[Dan Shapiro]

Why were are where we are..

Economic Illiteracy (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/stark_financial_literacy_020205.html)

"In a recent survey, Americans scored an average 42 percent on a 14-question test of basic knowledge of personal finances."

"High school seniors did even worse on a separate personal finance quiz, with 82 percent failing questions on issues like interest rates, savings, loans, credit cards, and calculating net worth." :what:

One of my favorite savings is, "that's a little trick I like to call MATH."

[Soap]

"In a recent survey, Americans scored an average 42 percent on a 14-question test of basic knowledge of personal finances."

"High school seniors did even worse on a separate personal finance quiz, with 82 percent failing questions on issues like interest rates, savings, loans, credit cards, and calculating net worth."

The government is responsible for the education of the vast majority of America's youth.

Economic knowledge is bad for the government's business.

Draw your own conclusions.

[mjustice]

I see nothing wrong with accelerated tax cuts and no double taxation of dividends. Eliminating the double tax should encourage people to invest in securities that offer dividends.

Anyone who does not understand that this is a tax cut for everyone needs to get their heads out of the sand. Rich people pay more taxes than poor people, so why shouldn't they get more back (besides, there are some poor people who pay NO tax).

Any savings that the rich exeperience usually benefits the poor anyway. Saving it in the bank gives the bank more money for them to loan people. Buy some tangible items keeps the person who produces it employed (to some extent).

Flashbunny has an excellent Flash presentation that explains this.

MJ

[Dan Shapiro]

And while I am thinking about it...doesn't the whole graduated tax rate remind you of anything.
Hint: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

[Politically Incorrect]

So how do you cut taxes and then raise the federal budget from $1.8 billion (at the end of the Clinton administration) to over $2 trillion? :rolleyes:

[Bruce H]

Tax cuts are not in favor by democrats because for there to be economic stimulus from them they depend on individual actions. They would rather have some sort of program that paid you X amount so they could say, Look what we did for you. Now if they would just get rid of the ATF and the DEA and trim the rest real close we would all be better off. There wouldn't be the need for all that ltax revenue. Won't ever happen though because a politition never saw a spending program they didn't like, reguardlwess of party affiliation or political direction.

[Nanook]

Dan Shapiro said: And while I am thinking about it...doesn't the whole graduated tax rate remind you of anything.
Hint: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Indeed it does, Dan. The Communist Manifesto. The second 'plank' calls for a progressive OR graduated income tax. Ours is progressive and graduated.

It's always amazed me that a system discredited almost everywhere it's been tried, that only works at gunpoint, can always find another place to try it out.

[Zander]

The IRS's figures for 2001 indicate that the upper 50% of those who pay taxes "contribute" 96.1% of total remittances.

The class-dividing demagogues of the left propagandize that the lower 50% of taxpayers will receive a "disproportionate" return of taxes paid under President Bush's proposal. Prominently mentioned is the Earned Income Credit which is neither a credit nor earned...as the transfer of tax dollars is not based on earned income but rather on the lack of same!

To be accurate, the EIC is simply one more transfer of wealth from those who are productive to those who aren't...an extension of the most basic of Marxist ideologies:

To each, according to his need...from each, according to his ability.

Why can we not identify this policy as what it really is:

Blatant thievery, aided, abetted and sanctioned by the fed.gov under mortal threat to those who must pay or suffer seizure of assets, imprisonment or worse.

[labgrade]

Politically Incorrect's

" ... cut taxes and then raise the federal budget from $1.8 billion (at the end of the Clinton administration) to over $2 trillion?"

Huh!?

I have no real clue as to what the actual budget was during The Klinton Years, but it was most surely way over anything billion-wise & was very muchso beforehand, far as I know.
& I think we're well-past $6T lately.

I haven't even had a chnace to know a darned thing in the last 10+ days, but did just want to start a thread re the Dems gulping.

Looked like pretty good fun to me. Nice enough to see y'all got a bit of yakkin' outa the way as a result. ;)

[Frohickey]

Family of 4 making $39,000 gets $1100+ of money.

Sounds like I should plan on getting a new 1911, or GP100... that, or time to plunk my $1100 into RGR or SWB.

[John Galt]

Random thoughts...

Tax cuts won't "Cost" the government, they are taxpayer SAVINGS.

Everytime Democrats mentioning anything at all about race, they need to be called racist in the most shrill tones.

When stupid comentators mention government "revenues" and "cost" the government, those terms only apply to private business. Government uses "Fund Accounting" where there are no revenues, expenses or profits.

If there was a law to be voted on that would cut the taxes on everyone by 80% and leave mine real high, I would still vote for it. I vote on right and wrong.

[Frohickey]

Why should those who do not pay income taxes "get" anything? If the Democrats want to help, they can start by getting out of the way of the Productive Class. When are they going to realise that the more the Productive Class produces, the more there is to go around for the Taxeaters that they represent? Heck, the Taxeaters may even get jobs and become productive.


Hate to say it, but you are not seeing the modus operandi of the Liberals.

Liberals want power, and power comes from money. Either money you make and keep, or money you take from others and give to others.
If you give everyone a tax cut, the Liberals lose. All of a sudden, their 'constituents' do not need them as much anymore. Liberals are kind of like 'drug pushers', only they are really 'money pushers'. They get their status in life by making sure that they are needed.

[JohnBT]

They're all power nuts playing with the money of others.

Meanwhile, how fair is it that the Commonwealth of Virginia has a sales tax on FOOD?

Talk about screwing people on limited incomes.

John

[Art Eatman]

What's hilarious is the argument that eliminating the tax on dividends only benefits the "rich". Ever heard of pension funds? Keogh plans? 401K? Not to mention that 50% of all families now own stocks...

Pension funds are invested in the stock market, and the dividends go into the body of the funds. No taxes on dividends means the funds grow larger. Larger funds mean the school teachers, the union folks, government employees and "just folks" would get larger retirement incomes.

That's roughly 75% of all of us in this country that one way or another are involved in the stock market.

How 'bout dat? 75% of us are "the rich"!!!

:D, Art

[Sodbuster]

75% of us are "the rich"!!!
Are you ciphering using voodoo economics, Art? :D

[Seeker]

Isn't that the plane Bush implemeted just after he was elected that the Demicans screamed so loudly about, that didn't actually save the economy?

Don’t be so blinded by your hate of Bush that you can’t see positives where they exist.

Ahenry, you misunderstand me, while it is true I am not a Bush fan, I meant to comment on the Demicans playing the hypocritical Johnny-come-lately by offering the same plan they screammed about Bush offering during the election. They are trying to buy votes for $300 each.

As for Bush giving each taxpayer $300, hard to believe that it didn'tsway a feew voters that didn't really care anyway to go out and vote for the guy that would send them 300 bucks. As for it being benefical for the economy I didn't notice the upturn, but perhaps that is because I ma in Oregon where the economy is a 'little weak'.

In general as a libertarian I would like to see MUCH larger tax cuts. As I stated before and others have stated, it is our money that they are'giving' back to us and I beleive it would be much more efficent if the Feds kept their hands out of our pockets altogther much like they did 200 years ago.

For the elimination of dividend income, I think that is a great start. Next should be capital gains tax and income tax.

[Cal4D4]

This whole "progressive tax" thing has another side to it. In L.A. county, the average income of a family of four is supposed to be around $125,000. This is about what you need to pay your $3k-$4k/month house payment for the average 3 bedroom 1-2 bath 40 year old tract house and annual property tax of $5000++. Another $5k for state taxes, another $20K+ in Fed income tax and approx $6K+ in self employment tax(Social Security). Car registration taxes are about $300-$400 on a late model domestic or low end import. I think gas taxes average about $500 per car per year. How does this compare to the tax income in your area for a working couple with 2 kids buying a comparable home in a upper blue collar/mid-level white collar area?

[Justin Moore]

The government is responsible for the education of the vast majority of America's youth.

Economic knowledge is bad for the government's business.

Draw your own conclusions.

That's all you need to know right there ;)

[Khornet]

On a proposal to increase tax revenue by increasing taxes on corporations:
(Paraphrase) To continue making a profit the corporationa are just going to have to raise prices. So who really pays the tax? The PEOPLE pay the taxes--ALL of the taxes.

On gummint:
It's just like a baby: all appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.

[Monkeyleg]

Cal4D4: ouch! I thought we had it bad here in WI!!!

I live in a nice, middle-class urban area. My neighbors are cops, teachers, tradesmen, etc. The cost of a 3 bedroom, 1 1/2 bath brick home (two-story or ranch style) is right around $140,000. Median incomes for husband and wife are probably around $60,000 a year. Taxes on said homes are in the $3000 a year range, with mortgage payments hovering around $600 a month. State income tax rate is 5.6%. Vehicle registration is $45 a year.

The property tax is the most outrageous, and puts WI into one of the five highest-taxed states in the country.

As for Bush's tax plan, I sure do hope it passes. He's thrown in a couple of items to make it attractive to those who don't pay much in taxes, but overall it's very fair. I had a terrible year with my business, yet I'm still going to have to poney up a few grand to the IRS. I might even have to borrow the money to pay. :fire:

If the Democrats keep up their harangue about those who make over $80,000 a year being "rich," their base is going to shrink.

[Cal4D4]

Well Monkeyleg, if you could find that house here for $140k, the taxes would only run about $1600. Trouble is, unless you bought years ago, the house costs $500K to $600K and taxes run $5500+. Ten years ago it ran about $375K and your taxes are closer to $4k. Older neighbors are cops, teachers and tradesman. Newer neighbors are attorneys. Oh well, there goes the neighborhood!

[.45TCB]

I've seen several references in this thread to the Demo plan giving $300 to each taxpayer. Several news sources I've seen state that the $300 is for each worker, regardless of whether that worker actually pays any income tax.

Yeah, sounds fair to me. :rolleyes:

[Don Gwinn]

I pay about $650 a month for a two story Victorian with three bedrooms.

My wife and I were watching Boston Public the other day when one of the teachers was whining that his girlfriend had left him because he was too poor. "I might make $40,000 this year if I'm lucky" the second-year teacher said.

If I made $40,000 a year, I'd be sitting pretty. Of course, I'd have to make it here.

[Kaylee]

RE "because I'm too poor" comment at 40K...

Some people will never feel "paid what they're worth" simply because they never learned how to manage their own money properly, or to control their own impulses. Obviously if they have no money at the end of the month, it's because they haven't been paid enough, not 'cause they bought too big a house, too many cars, too many toys on credit, whathaveyou....

Ya can't fill up a bucket with no bottom.


That said, point taken about different costs of living in different areas leading to different ideas about "rich." Odd, actually. Given that leftists tend to have the most support in cities, where costs and pay is typically higher, thus bumping everyone into higher brackets.

Guh... a (low) flat tax is looking better and better as an interim step. Hrmmm.... out of curiosity, is there a THR or TFL kinda place for econ issues like this anyone know of?

-K

[Art Eatman]

The Daily Reckoning (free email) has a site with a forum. So far, I've not been particularly whelmed by the discussions. Some seem to know what they're talking about; others haven't a clue.

I think the URL is http://www.dailyreckoning.com

The DR is a contrarian financial newsletter deal. I like it for the hard numbers not commonly given elsewhere in the Big Mediahhh. Gary North is also involved with Bill Bonner. (North's articles also are occasionally posted at http://www.lewrockwell.com

Art

[ahenry]

Kaylee,

I used to follow several economics list serves, but like Art said none worth much. Some people (a small minority) knew what they were talking about, most didn’t. Also, too many couldn't separate their factual econ from their desire to take their knowledge and do some social engineering. There are two types of econ, normative and positive. Its devilishly difficult to keep the two separate and most people don’t even try. I quit paying attention to their noise.

Edited to add:

Ahenry, you misunderstand me, while it is true I am not a Bush fan, I meant to comment on the Demicans playing the hypocritical Johnny-come-lately by offering the same plan they screammed about Bush offering during the election. They are trying to buy votes for $300 each. Fair enough Seeker. Sorry ‘bout the misunderstanding.

[redhead]

Well, us poor fools in California are going to need tax relief at the federal level, to help offset the tax increases that are coming at the State level. Cali is over 30 billion in debt, and the gov and legislature haven't figured out it's the spending. They only view it as a "revenue" problem. Those rich folks just aren't making the money they used to, and forking over the income taxes, so the politicians have to find it someplace else. Cutting programs and spending just isn't on their radar screen. :banghead:

[ReadyontheRight]

If there was a law to be voted on that would cut the taxes on everyone by 80% and leave mine real high, I would still vote for it. I vote on right and wrong.

Well said. Who is this John Galt guy anyway?

[ReadyontheRight]

The property tax is the most outrageous, and puts WI into one of the five highest-taxed states in the country.

Monkeyleg - I lived in Wisconsin for a while. I paid $4500/year in property tax on a $115,000 home. Wisconsin property taxes are INSANE. The monthly property tax payment was more than 35% of my total payment to the bank for the mortgage.

I lived in the Milwaukee suburbs and I've heard it's even worse in Milwaukee.:cuss:

[Monkeyleg]

ReadyontheRight, you must have lived in one of the northern suburbs. Unbelievable.

Our state is now facing a potential $2.6 billion (at minimum) budget shortfall over the next couple of years, so I fully expect the pol's to raise taxes in some shape or form.

Wisconsin isn't alone in this, and many governors are pushing Washington to help bail them out. That's another hurdle for Bush to face.

BTW, I loath the Dem's use of the term "working families." Implicit in the term is the idea that a couple who makes more than $80K a year doesn't work for it.

Anyone who's dumb enough to buy into that argument couldn't make a living using his brain.

[Chainsaw]

Dick,

The little woman and myself are already on the look out for a friendlier place to live other than Taxconsin. In 8 years we might both call it quits, and we could not afford at todays rates projected into the future to live here.

We live in the boonies now but as more and more people are getting out of Dodge to live here, they are wanting to bring the ways of Dodge with them.

We are looking at several low inhabited areas in cold climates where most just wouldn't care to live.

Are you going to the Fondy gun show?------------Chainsaw

[labgrade]

My only reply is that God Himself only required 10% - if our guv'mint "needs"more, betcha they're somehow outa line.

Suffice that enough as a "a statement" regards my tax polocy.

Bush has "the guppies" gulping.

That's plenty fine,

I think that a good thing. ;)

[joeislove]

I say to heck with a reduction in income taxes. Let's just get rid of it altogether. John Linder, who was my Congressman until the Democrat-controlled state legislature gerrymandered the districts to get a new Democrat seat (which backfired -- my new Congressman is Republican), has just re-introduced the Fair Tax Bill. I think it's HR 25 this time around.

Basically, this is a national retail sales tax. No more income tax, no more Social Security. The sales tax, at 23% (I think), would fund the government at the same levels it's at now, and would be less affected by economic slumps than an income tax system.

Because the tax is only levied on new items (stuff can only be taxed once), you have the option to avoid the tax by buying second-hand, e.g. buy a 2-year-old car that just came off a lease rather than getting a new car right off the lot.

Because companies would no longer have to pay income taxes and payroll taxes many times over, the cost of goods and services is projected to drop by 20-30%, meaning the tax would barely be noticeable.

Because people would retain more of their money, they would have more to spend or save, which would keep the economy pumping, and keep the revenues flowing.

To insure that low-income families aren't adversely affected by the sales tax on the necessities of life (food, utility bills, etc.), you will receive a refund check for the estimated tax you would have paid on a pre-determined "cost of living" estimate. For instance, if they set the cost-of-living level at $12,000/yr, and the tax rate is 23%, you would pay, over the course of a year, $2,760 in sales tax. Once a month, you would receive a refund for 1/12th of that amount, so every month you get a check for $230 to cover the cost of the sales tax you paid on groceries or power bills.

To find out more about this plan, visit http://www.fairtax.org and take a look at their numbers. Then write your Congressman and your Senators.

In my opinion, this is the best solution to the problem.

*stepping down off soapbox*

[BigG]

Just want to chime in and note that I relish the intelligent discussion of important issues I find nowhere else on the net.

The public education system is part of the Democrat's insidious plan to enslave us all for their uses in my view. If we can sever the link with the "free public education for all" we would be halfway to economic freedom as an educated person will not believe the kind of lies we see presented everyday by the opinion leaders.

[longeyes]

Meanwhile, back in the shadows, behind the arras, the State Dept. is reportedly "in talks" with the Social Security honchos about providing Social Security payments to Mexican nationals, both legal and illegal, who worked in the U.S. Oh yeah, they'd count years worked in Mexico toward the minimum qualifying period. Sounds as if a whole lot of people, millions, will be getting the maximum SS stipend by that formula. Congress would still have to pass it, of course, but this one has the smell of Karl Rove's vote-pandering all over it. Hey, what's another $200 billion a year out of the American workers' pockets if it means votes for politicians and more villas for Mr. Fox and his compadres. This could be Bush's Waterloo once it gets out there, and the conservative talk radio honchos are already jumping on it.

[Art Eatman]

ReadyontheRight, "John Galt" is a character in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".

The novel is an excellent compendium of ideas, although her writing style is most definitely excessively wordy. Regardless, it's worth the effort, particularly if any Libertarian ideas have merit to you.

(Or, were you actually asking in the Randian fashion? :D)

Art