Truth About Bush Tax Cuts

Money buys better service under both circumstances.

 

I agree with the incomes of the rich getting bigger while the middle class stays stagnant. But the issue I was raiseing was the tax cuts. Big corporations are making money hand over fist and not much of the corporate profits go to the workers. That however is a different issue than income taxes.

This documentary by Aaron Russo tells it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ueEfRXZCVA

 

Yes it does, and???

 

I say give them a slightly larger piece. They aren't going to live any longer than the rest of us. Let's do that and see what the lobbyists rant about. They won't go for it.

You ask the regular taxpayers to pay without giving them a bigger piece all the time. You ask them to not get pay raises, or health insurance, you prohibit them from filing law suits or bankruptcy, you promise them lower prices, but we never see them. You tell them HMOs are going to solve the health care problems, and we let clerical staff tell us what health care we should receive based on the bottom line of insurance companies. You deregulate utilities, with the promises that the market will create lower prices, but what it does is hike the prices so high through manipulated shortages that many die.

 

So what you are inferring is corporations don't pay taxes? Aren't corporations made up of individuals. Doesn't that gain show up on their income statements? And when you look at the gross incomes of the obscenely rich in your chart is that only their reportable income, or does it include all income.

 

Not at all, corporate taxes and income taxes are two entirely different things. I actually advocate eliminating income taxes all together. Corporate taxes alone can fund the federal gov't. That is how gov't was funded before the 16th amendment. Taxes on corporate profits. In fact the corporate profit taxes collected in 2005 were equal to ALL taxes, corporate and income, collected in 1998. As I stated in a past post in this thread, eliminate the deficit and you can eliminate the federal income tax. Also, there is no federal law that actually requires one to pay federal income tax. Watch that video, it's been around for a few years now and was made by a respected hollywood producer who just passed away.

 

You can't believe everything you read from the Heritage Foundation.

Where is the support for your claims?

.

 

Get out of my head!

 

The chart I posted came from the heritage website and they got it from the Dept. of the Treasury.

 

You drew conclusions from that chart that can't be made without knowing other data such as people's income.

Has anyone looked at the tax rates for the wealthy over the past ten years or so? I'm referring to the actual tax rate of higher income groups, not the percentage of the tax revenue that they account for. Also, what has been the trend in recent years for the income of the wealthy relative to lower income groups.

.

 

Weren't we operating under a surplus before GWB? Thanks to the republicans and their Contract with America, it did happen under Clinton's administration, but he was not the main player. Did congress call for an end to income tax for anyone except the rich with Bush's tax cuts?

This is the actual truth about Bush's tax cuts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020400493_pf.html

 

Maybe today's congress should consider signing a version of that one:

• FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
• SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
• THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
• FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
• FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
• SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
• SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; I think they should apply this to tax cuts as well.
• EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

It's all about accountability. For you people that weren't alive then or too little to read, they printed that up and bought ad space in the TV Guide, a publication that the majority of working people read in the US at that time. Everyone was aware.

 

I'd like to see those rules implimented. On the quote from the Washington Post, they are quite wrong about the tax cuts contributing to the deficit. As I have shown, tax revenues actually incresed. It was the runaway spending that cased the deficit.

 

Well, if you're going to post a quote from that article, why not post the FULL paragraph, which clearly backs up my claim of tax revenues INCREASING, this being the truth about the taxs cuts, according to the very article you linked to. Why did you conveniently leave the last sentence OUT of your post?? Hmm.


"The budget deficit has not figured recently as a major issue in Washington or on the campaign trail, as it did in the 1980s and '90s. Bush inherited a surplus in 2001, but his tax cuts, the slowing economy early in his administration and a massive defense buildup turned the surplus into red ink, with the deficit hitting a record $413 billion in 2004. In recent years, the deficit has fallen as tax revenues jumped with the improving economy."

That article also talks about the stimulus package adding $146 billion to the deficit. Was, or wasn't this package agreed to by democrats as well? In fact didn't the democrats want and even larger package?? Let's not forget the democrats have controlled both houses for two years now and have approved every single spending request Bush has sent them.

I do, without a doubt blame Bush for this deficit as he has never veto'ed a single spending plan, but it takes two to tango, and I see no evidence of fiscal constraint for either house.

 

I am neither Democrat or Republican so arguments that the dems voted for something too doesn't work on me. I don't feel it will do much if any good, except make the average Joe a little happier (shortly before an election) when he receives the check, but it won't last long as he has to pay it out to fill up his vehicle.

 

As they should. On the other hand, the rich get far, far more loopholes.

Examples upon request.

 

I think arguing about who pays the most in income taxes is simply a distraction and ruse to muddy what the real question of is, Are the obscenely rich actually paying their real share? And to do that one has to look at capital gains, payroll taxes, investment income, inheritance tax, offshore income, etc.

 

Here are some figures on the deficit from the CBO. The government had some very rosy pictures of 10-year budget surpluses totaling trillions of dollars during the 2000s and the Bush administration used those forecasts as part of its argument for tax cuts. Those surpluses never came to pass.



.

 

lol. You just rephrased the same damn question.

 

Examining the trend in the after-tax income of various income groups over the past ten years would be another approach to answering the question.

A group's contribution to the overall tax revenue can go up during a period even though its tax rate goes down if they have done well financially in that period; for example, if their incomes over that period increased significantly compared with those of lower income groups. The fact they they account for more of the overall tax revenue doesn't necessarily mean that they were hit the hardest.

.